SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs)are a contractual mechanism that allow a federal agency to procure energy savings and facility improvements without upfront capital costs to reduce costs and resiliency. ESPCs are covered under FAR Part 23.2, and 42 USC § 8287. Section 8287(a)(2)(A) of Title 42 of the U.S. Code requires that each energy savings performance contract (ESPC) undergo an annual energy audit, resulting in a separate audit report for every project. The objective of the present report is to compile and analyze all annual ESPC audit reports issued between October 1, 2023, and September 30, 2024, for projects awarded under Generations 1, 2, and 3 of DOE’s ESPC IDIQ contracts. During this period, 205 measurement and verification (M&V) reports were produced for 200 projects; the total number of reports exceeds the number of projects because some projects generated more than one report(for example, a few projects measure savings twice per year and produce two audit reports annually, each covering a different six-month period). By aggregating the results from these individual audits, the report determines the portfolio-wide realization rate of energy and cost savings for all active ESPC projects awarded under DOE’s IDIQ program. For all 205audit reports, sufficient information was available to compare project-level estimated, reported, and guaranteed cost savings. Reported cost savings accounted for ESCO verified savings per each project’s M&V plan. The total reported cost savings for the period addressed were $\$$647.8million,compared with the total guaranteed cost savings of $\$$601.6million. On average across the reported projects: •ESPC contractors guaranteed 92.8% of the estimated cost savings• projects reported achieving 100.0% of the estimated cost savings• projects reported achieving 107.7% of the guaranteed cost savings. The M&V performed for the period indicated adjustments for government operations and maintenance impacts to savings amount to$\$$43.9millionandcould be restored with the original operational parameters for impacted projects. Accounting for this potential cost savings impact, these projects still realized 100.4% of the guaranteed cost savings. The information on estimated and reported energy savings was collected and compared for all 205of the reports examined. Based on site energy, estimated savings totaled 14.88million MMBtu, and reported savings were 15.33million MMBtu; 3.1% greater than the estimated energy savings. All of the reports examined contained sufficient information to calculate source energy savings. Based on site-adjusted source energy, total estimated energy savings were 20.90 million MMBtu, and reported savings were 21.22million MMBtu, 101.5% of the estimated energy savings. For water savings, the estimated savings were 11,539,055 kGal and the reported savings were 13,315,930 kGal. This means 1,776,875 kGal more water was saved than estimated, which is about 15% higher than the estimate. These results indicate that, overall, the reported energy savings slightly exceeded the estimated values, while estimated water savings significantly exceeded estimated values, suggesting that the projects achieved greater cost savings than originally projected. The total annual expense for the ESCOs to perform annual M&V audits and reporting was $\$$10.02million. Through this effort, $\$$647.8 million in annual cost savings was verified. The M&V results indicated that $\$$43.9 million of these verified savings reflected adjustments due to government operations A-6and maintenance impacts, which could be restored under the original operational parameters for the affected projects. These findings show the value of M&V that only costs 1.7%of the guaranteed cost savings to ensure guarantees are met.
Emerging energy-efficient building systems increasingly exhibit greater functionality, often requiring multiple operating modes (e.g. white-tunability for lighting products and data traffic for devices with networked, integrated sensors). This increased functionality makes energy consumption estimates more complex. Given that these functions consume energy, the energy performance of such building systems is dependent on what operating modes they use and how much time they spend in each mode. Devices and systems that can report their own energy consumption mitigate this energy-performance uncertainty. This study explores the energy-reporting accuracy of market-available connected electrical outlets. The study considers two residential-market products (five units each, one outlet per unit) and three commercial-market products (two units each, 18 to 24 outlets per unit) with the ability to report power drawn and/or energy consumed by devices connected to their receptacles. The products were purchased through typical market channels. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) conducted testing in December 2018 at its Connected Lighting Test Bed (CLTB), using a custom-developed test setup and method adapted from industry standards. The setup collected energy-consumption data reported by the outlet devices under test (DUTs) at one-minute intervals and compared that data with measurements taken by a reference meter over a range of test conditions. The residential products reported power draw but not interval or cumulative energy consumption. The commercial products reported both power draw and cumulative energy consumption. Relative reporting error (RRE) was calculated for all measurements, and analysis of the results revealed variations across devices and test conditions. The total number of measurements (50 for each residential product, 60 for each commercial product) offers an appreciable comparison of performance at the make/model level. The average RRE of the residential products derived from reported power draw was -0.02% and -1.20%. The average RRE for two of the three the commercial products derived from reported power draw was worse than those of the residential products (-2.40%, -2.72%, -0.36%). The internal integration of power over time, used to calculate cumulative energy consumption, typically occurs at current and voltage sampling rates much higher than once per minute. This suggests that the average commercial-product RRE derived from reported energy consumption should be very consistent and better than performance based on reported power draw. However, the RRE derived from reported energy consumption varied significantly across the three makes of commercial-market products and was uniformly less accurate than performance based on reported power draw. Subsequent analysis identified a number of root causes for this decrease in performance, most of which were related to reporting resolution. The goals of this study are to generate awareness of building systems capable of reporting their own energy consumption, further interest in the value of energy data for a variety of uses, draw attention to how the accuracy of reported metrics can be characterized, and quantify the performance variation found in marketavailable products. The results of this study and subsequent related work may be relevant to stakeholders in industry-specification and standards-development organizations. The methods this study employs could inform test and measurement procedures and performance classifications for connected outlets, lighting products, and other building systems capable of reporting their own energy consumption. The study concludes with stakeholder recommendations, including the following: • Energy-reporting device and system manufacturers developing products that report energy consumption should characterize the accuracy of reported metrics using a reference meter calibrated by an independent laboratory that was accredited by an ILAC MRA signatory (and whose scope of accreditation explicitly covers energy measurement), and should include this information on product data sheets. • Standards and specification development organizations should develop application-specific performance classifications that end users can understand and relate to their energy-data use needs (e.g., 2% accuracy class for utility streetlight energy billing needs, or 10% accuracy class for ESCO performance verification needs). • Current or potential owners, operators, and specifiers of energy-reporting building systems should rigorously analyze the dependency of current and planned energy-data use cases on accuracy, noting in particular the dependence (or lack thereof) on relative vs. absolute accuracy, and on trueness vs. precision (i.e., repeatability), and should communicate use-case needs to industry standards and specification organizations.
Emerging energy-efficient building systems increasingly exhibit greater functionality, often requiring multiple operating modes (e.g. white-tunability for lighting products and data traffic for devices with networked, integrated sensors). This increased functionality makes energy consumption estimates more complex. Given that these functions consume energy, the energy performance of such building systems is dependent on what operating modes they use and how much time they spend in each mode. Devices and systems that can report their own energy consumption mitigate this energy-performance uncertainty. This study explores the energy-reporting accuracy of market-available connected electrical outlets. The study considers two residential-market products (five units each, one outlet per unit) and three commercial-market products (two units each, 18 to 24 outlets per unit) with the ability to report power drawn and/or energy consumed by devices connected to their receptacles. The products were purchased through typical market channels. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) conducted testing in December 2018 at its Connected Lighting Test Bed (CLTB), using a custom-developed test setup and method adapted from industry standards. The setup collected energy-consumption data reported by the outlet devices under test (DUTs) at one-minute intervals and compared that data with measurements taken by a reference meter over a range of test conditions. The residential products reported power draw but not interval or cumulative energy consumption. The commercial products reported both power draw and cumulative energy consumption. Relative reporting error (RRE) was calculated for all measurements, and analysis of the results revealed variations across devices and test conditions. The total number of measurements (50 for each residential product, 60 for each commercial product) offers an appreciable comparison of performance at the make/model level. The average RRE of the residential products derived from reported power draw was -0.02% and -1.20%. The average RRE for two of the three the commercial products derived from reported power draw was worse than those of the residential products (-2.40%, -2.72%, -0.36%). The internal integration of power over time, used to calculate cumulative energy consumption, typically occurs at current and voltage sampling rates much higher than once per minute. This suggests that the average commercial-product RRE derived from reported energy consumption should be very consistent and better than performance based on reported power draw. However, the RRE derived from reported energy consumption varied significantly across the three makes of commercial-market products and was uniformly less accurate than performance based on reported power draw. Subsequent analysis identified a number of root causes for this decrease in performance, most of which were related to reporting resolution. The goals of this study are to generate awareness of building systems capable of reporting their own energy consumption, further interest in the value of energy data for a variety of uses, draw attention to how the accuracy of reported metrics can be characterized, and quantify the performance variation found in marketavailable products. The results of this study and subsequent related work may be relevant to stakeholders in industry-specification and standards-development organizations. The methods this study employs could inform test and measurement procedures and performance classifications for connected outlets, lighting products, and other building systems capable of reporting their own energy consumption. The study concludes with stakeholder recommendations, including the following: • Energy-reporting device and system manufacturers developing products that report energy consumption should characterize the accuracy of reported metrics using a reference meter calibrated by an independent laboratory that was accredited by an ILAC MRA signatory (and whose scope of accreditation explicitly covers energy measurement), and should include this information on product data sheets. • Standards and specification development organizations should develop application-specific performance classifications that end users can understand and relate to their energy-data use needs (e.g., 2% accuracy class for utility streetlight energy billing needs, or 10% accuracy class for ESCO performance verification needs). • Current or potential owners, operators, and specifiers of energy-reporting building systems should rigorously analyze the dependency of current and planned energy-data use cases on accuracy, noting in particular the dependence (or lack thereof) on relative vs. absolute accuracy, and on trueness vs. precision (i.e., repeatability), and should communicate use-case needs to industry standards and specification organizations.
Introduction: The most commonly reported adverse event, based on frequency of Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) preferred terms (PTs), in the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database is ‘‘drug ineffective’’ (DI). This study aimed to describe the DI reports and provide data to support recommendations on how to best evaluate these reports. Methods: We characterized all FAERS reports coded with the MedDRA PT ‘‘drug ineffective’’ received between 1 September 2012 and 31 August 2016 using all other FAERS reports as a comparator. Additionally, we conducted a manual evaluation to identify informative data elements in the report narratives. Results: During the study period, 247,513 (6.4% of all FAERS reports) DI reports were entered in FAERS. Compared with non-DI reports, DI reports were more likely to be reported by consumers (69.8 vs. 48.1%) and less likely to report a serious outcome (26.2 vs. 56.3%). Most DI reports (88%) were from the USA. Manual evaluation of 552 sample US reports identified 43 reports (7.8%) deemed ‘‘useful’’; a higher proportion of ‘‘useful’’ reports provided a batch or lot number (39.5 vs. 17.2%) and were coded with additional PTs beyond ‘‘drug ineffective’’ (83.7 vs. 59.2%), the most frequent of which were ‘‘product quality issue’’ (23.3%) and ‘‘product substitution issue’’ (18.6%). Conclusions: DI was the most frequently reported adverse event in the FAERS database; however, the yield from these reports in terms of usefulness from a pharmacovigilance perspective was low. Efficient strategies are needed to identify which DI reports are more likely to contain useful information.
Energy reporting is the principle that all energy-using devices in buildings should be able to track their own energy use and report this to the local network. Energy reporting can provide building owners with easy access to highly granular energy use data. This report makes the case that energy reporting should become a free basic feature of all devices, and reports on a project intended to move us towards that goal. The project collected a set of demonstration devices with energy reporting features, including products that were modified by the project team or the manufacturer, or are already available for sale. To show these devices operating live at meetings and conferences, the team created a management system that queries the energy reporting devices for their data, stores the data, and displays it in compelling visualizations. The devices covered a wide range, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (thermostat and air purifier); lighting (individual bulb, task light, and auto-dimming overhead light); a vehicle charger; a water heater; electronics (notebook personal computer and universal serial bus charger); and three external meters (one integral with a dimming light switch). The demonstration uses a variety of communication protocols. The report reviews existing communication protocols that support energy reporting and describes how to use them with a proposed reference data model for energy reporting. It also assesses ways that energy codes and standards processes can be leveraged to drive energy reporting technology into the market. Energy reporting could ultimately save California on the order of 2.5 terawatt-hours per year and about $0.8 billion per year. Energy reporting is a highly practical technology with minimal (sometimes no) cost to consumers and manufacturers. This report discusses creation of the energy reporting devices themselves, analysis and recommendations for data models and protocols for energy reporting, and energy codes and standards implications of energy reporting technology. While energy reporting does not directly save energy, it provides information for better decision-making to save energy in changing equipment operation, maintenance, and replacement.
NASA has requested a study from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to provide an independent review of more than 30 evidence reports on human health risks for long duration and exploration spaceflight. The evidence reports, which are publicly available, are categorized into five broad categories: (1) behavioral health and performance; (2) human health countermeasures (with a focus on bone metabolism and orthopedics, nutrition, immunology, and cardiac and pulmonary physiology); (3) radiation; (4) human factors issues; and (5) exploration medical capabilities. The reports are revised on an ongoing basis to incorporate new scientific information. In conducting this study, an IOM ad hoc committee will build on the 2008 IOM report Review of NASA's Human Research Program Evidence Books. That report provided an assessment of the process used for developing the evidence reports and provided an initial review of the evidence reports that had been completed at that time. Each year, NASA staff will identify a set of evidence reports for committee review. Over the course of the study all evidence reports will be reviewed. The committee will hold an annual scientific workshop to receive input on the evidence reports it is reviewing that year and an update on the recent literature. The committee will issue an annual letter report that addresses the following questions relevant to each evidence report: 1. Does the evidence report provide sufficient evidence, as well as sufficient risk context, that the risk is of concern for long-term space missions? 2. Does the evidence report make the case for the research gaps presented? 3. Are there any additional gaps in knowledge or areas of fundamental research that should be considered to enhance the basic understanding of this specific risk? 4. Does the evidence report address relevant interactions among risks? 5. Is input from additional disciplines needed? 6. Is the breadth of the cited literature sufficient? 7. What is the overall readability and quality? 8. Is the expertise of the authors sufficient to fully cover the scope of the given risk? 9. Has the evidence report addressed previous recommendations made by the IOM in the 2008 letter report?
The purposes of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Environmental Report 2021 are to record Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s (LLNL’s) compliance with environmental standards and requirements, describe LLNL’s environmental protection and remediation programs, and present the results of environmental monitoring at the two LLNL sites—the Livermore Site and Site 300. The report is prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by LLNL’s Environmental Functional Area. Submittal of the report satisfies requirements under DOE Order 231.1B, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting,” and DOE Order 458.1, “Radiation Protection of the Public and Environment.” The report is distributed electronically and is available at https://saer.llnl.gov/, the website for the LLNL annual environmental report. Previous LLNL annual environmental reports beginning with 1994 are also on the website. Some references in the electronic report text are underlined, which indicates that they are clickable links. Clicking on one of these links will open the related document, data workbook, or website. Sampling location maps throughout this report were created using ArcGIS® software by Esri. The report begins with an executive summary, which provides the purpose of the report and an overview of LLNL’s compliance and monitoring results. The first three chapters provide background information: Chapter 1 is an overview of the location, meteorology, and hydrogeology of the two LLNL sites; Chapter 2 is a summary of LLNL’s compliance with environmental regulations; and Chapter 3 is a description of LLNL’s environmental programs with an emphasis on the Environmental Management System including pollution prevention. The majority of the report covers LLNL’s environmental monitoring programs and monitoring data for 2021: effluent and ambient air monitoring and dose assessment (Chapter 4); waters, including wastewater, storm water runoff, surface water, rain, and groundwater (Chapter 5); and terrestrial, including soil, sediment, vegetation, foodstuff, ambient radiation, and special status wildlife and plants (Chapter 6). The remaining two chapters discuss LLNL’s groundwater remediation program (Chapter 7), and quality assurance for the environmental monitoring programs (Chapter 8). Complete monitoring data, which are summarized in the body of the report, are provided in Appendix A. The report uses Système International units, consistent with the federal Metric Conversion Act of 1975 and Executive Order 12770, “Metric Usage in Federal Government Programs” (1991). For ease of comparison to environmental reports issued prior to 1991, dose values and many radiological measurements are given in both metric and U.S. customary units. A conversion table is provided in the glossary. The report is the responsibility of LLNL’s Environmental Functional Area. Monitoring data were obtained through the combined efforts of the Environmental Functional Area; Environmental Restoration Department; Physical and Life Sciences Environmental Monitoring Radiological Laboratory; and the Radiation Protection Functional Area.
Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is the most frequently performed examination to assess bone mineral density in clinical practice. Aside from images and graphical displays, many numerical values are part of DXA reports. These values are typically manually entered into the formal report through the electronic medical record or PACS workstation. The process takes time and is prone to errors. Exporting the DXA numerical data via HL7 engine to the electronic medical record was proposed to improve reporting efficiency and accuracy. The output from the DXA unit computer was reconfigured to export the report content via the HL7 interface engine into the electronic medical record. Radiology interpretive reporting was subsequently done directly in the electronic medical record. In the evaluation of errors, 100 preliminary DXA reports before the change and 100 after the change were examined. These reports were analyzed for errors that included decimal change, number transposition, negative number issue, other incorrect number error, and failure to include prior exam for comparison. In addition, report turnaround times were evaluated before and after the changes were made. Reporting time evaluations included 1-year volume prior to change (3915 reports) and 1 month post-change (206 reports). Of 100 DEXA exams before the change, 15 final reports contained 25 numerical errors. After the change, no numerical errors in the reports were identified. Exam end to final report time decreased from 2159 to 625 min on average. Automating data transmittal from the DXA modality for report generation improves accuracy and turnaround time. This approach did not require any third party software, and healthcare information security concerns were negated since we are using our standard workstations. Secondary to the affordability and applicability to the large percentage of the population using electronic medical record systems, this type of automated workflow is recommended.
Objective: To evaluate clarity, completeness, and impact on surgical planning of MRI reporting of perianal fistulizing disease using a structured disease-specific template versus narrative reporting for planning of disease treatment by colorectal surgeons. Materials and methods: In this HIPAA-compliant, IRB-approved study with waiver of informed consent, a structured reporting template for perianal fistulizing disease MRIs was developed based on collaboration between colorectal surgeons and abdominal radiologists. The study population included 45 consecutive patients who underwent pelvic MRI for perianal fistulizing disease prior to implementation of structured reporting, and 60 consecutive patients who underwent pelvic MRI for perianal fistulizing disease after implementation of structured reporting. Objective evaluation of the reports for the presence of 12 key features was performed, as also subjective evaluation regarding the clarity and completeness of reports, and impact on surgical planning. Results: Significantly more key features were absent in narrative reports [mean: 6.3 ± 1.8 (range 3–11)] than in structured reports [mean: 0.3 ± 0.9 (range 1–5)] (p ≤ 0.001). The use of structured reporting also increased the percentage of completeness (72.5–88.3% for surgeon 1, and 61.2–81.3% for surgeon 2; p = 0.05 and 0.03, respectively), helpfulness in surgical planning (7.1 ± 1.5–7.6 ± 1.5 for surgeon 1, and 5.8 ± 1.4–7.1 ± 1.1 for surgeon 2; p = 0.05 and p < 0.001, respectively), and clarity (7.6 ± 1.3–8.3 ± 1.1 for surgeon 1, and 5.2 ± 1.4–7.1 ± 1.3 for surgeon 2; p = 0.006 and p < 0.001, respectively) of the reports. Conclusion: Structured MRI reports in patients with perianal fistulizing disease miss fewer key features than narrative reports. Moreover, structured reports were described as more complete and clear, and more helpful for treatment planning.
This report provides information on the inventory of commercial spent fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) in the United States, as well as non-commercial SNF and HLW in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) complex. Actual or estimated quantitative values for current inventories are provided along with inventory forecasts derived from examining different future commercial nuclear power generation scenarios. The report also includes select information on the characteristics associated with the wastes examined (e.g., type, packaging, heat generation rate, decay curves). This report was produced for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to support various analyses on options for storage and transport of SNF and HLW and sponsored by DOE’s Office of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition (SFWD). The report draws from and complements a previously issued report, Fuel Cycle Potential Waste Inventory for Disposition, developed for DOE’s Used Nuclear Fuel Research & Development Campaign. The current report is not intended as a revision to either Fuel Cycle Potential Waste Inventory for Disposition or Evaluation of Options for Permanent Geologic Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste in Support of a Comprehensive National Nuclear Fuel Cycle Strategy from which some underlying data is used as referenced in the current report. Rather, this report is intended as a stand-alone report providing estimates of current and projected SNF and HLW inventory and has been generated for SFWD planning purposes. This is a technical report that does not take into account contractual limitations or obligations under the Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste (Standard Contract) (10 CFR Part 961). For example, under the provisions of the Standard Contract, spent nuclear fuel in multi-assembly canisters is not an acceptable waste form, absent a mutually agreed to contract amendment. To the extent discussions or recommendations in this report conflict with the provisions of the Standard Contract, the Standard Contract governs the obligations of the parties, and this report in no manner supersedes, overrides, or amends the Standard Contract. This report reflects technical work which could support future decision making by DOE. No inferences should be drawn from this report regarding future actions by DOE, which are limited both by the terms of the Standard Contract and a lack of Congressional appropriations for the Department to fulfill its obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act including licensing and construction of a spent nuclear fuel repository.
The NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) is a voluntary, confidential aviation safety reporting system. The ASRS receives reports from pilots, air traffic controllers, flight attendants, and others involved in aviation operations. The reports are de-identified and coded by ASRS expert safety analysts, and a short descriptive synopsis is written to describe the safety issue. The de-identified reports are then disseminated to the aviation community in many ways, including via an online database, Safety Alert Bulletins, For Your Information Notices, and the CALLBACK newsletter. In this work, we consider whether we can improve the grouping, linking, and understanding of safety concerns through topic modeling. Specifically, we use topic modeling as a building block to identify emerging safety threats over time. This unsupervised approach, we argue, offers the flexibility to identify new emerging themes in this large dataset by constructing different timelines based on the content similarity of ASRS report narratives. This method's unsupervised nature improves upon related research, which is limited to pre-defined labels and therefore can not fully capture emerging safety threats. We apply our method to all ASRS reports in 2020 to assess if the generated timelines can highlight COVID-19 as it is emerging as a safety threat in incoming ASRS reports. We perform both a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the automatically constructed timelines. The qualitative evaluation is performed by describing the evolution of top terms in the timelines, generated by our method, which we found explicitly convey the themes of COVID-19. Separately, we use a set of 1,213 COVID-19 reports from 2020 that were manually identified by ASRS analysts to quantitatively evaluate the COVID-19 reports distribution across the timelines. Our results have shown that COVID-19 emergence can be identified using the top terms that were generated by topic modeling. The top terms in topic modeling therefore can serve as a summary alternative to manually inspecting reports. Moreover, leveraging the manually identified COVID-19 reports, we found the manually identified timelines accounted for over 70% of the COVID-19 reports curated by the ASRS analysts, which demonstrates the potential of this approach for facilitating the understanding of safety concerns as they emerge and evolve. This method shows great potential to understand aerospace safety threats and other narrative- driven incident report databases.
The NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) is a voluntary, confidential aviation safety reporting system. The ASRS receives reports from pilots, air traffic controllers, flight attendants, and others involved in aviation operations. The reports are de-identified and coded by ASRS expert safety analysts, and a short descriptive synopsis is written to describe the safety issue. The de-identified reports are then disseminated to the aviation community in many ways, including via an online database, Safety Alert Bulletins, For Your Information Notices, and the CALLBACK newsletter. In this work, we consider whether we can improve the grouping, linking, and understanding of safety concerns through topic modeling. Specifically, we use topic modeling as a building block to identify emerging safety threats over time. This unsupervised approach, we argue, offers the flexibility to identify new emerging themes in this large dataset by constructing different timelines based on the content similarity of ASRS report narratives. This method's unsupervised nature improves upon related research, which is limited to pre-defined labels and therefore can not fully capture emerging safety threats. We apply our method to all ASRS reports in 2020 to assess if the generated timelines can highlight COVID-19 as it is emerging as a safety threat in incoming ASRS reports. We perform both a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the automatically constructed timelines. The qualitative evaluation is performed by describing the evolution of top terms in the timelines, generated by our method, which we found explicitly convey the themes of COVID-19. Separately, we use a set of 1,213 COVID-19 reports from 2020 that were manually identified by ASRS analysts to quantitatively evaluate the COVID-19 reports distribution across the timelines. Our results have shown that COVID-19 emergence can be identified using the top terms that were generated by topic modeling. The top terms in topic modeling therefore can serve as a summary alternative to manually inspecting reports. Moreover, leveraging the manually identified COVID-19 reports, we found the manually identified timelines accounted for over 70% of the COVID-19 reports curated by the ASRS analysts, which demonstrates the potential of this approach for facilitating the understanding of safety concerns as they emerge and evolve. This method shows great potential to understand aerospace safety threats and other narrative- driven incident report databases.
Here we present documentation of the ESS-DIVE reporting format for Unoccupied Aerial System (UAS) data and metadata. This reporting format provides guidance to data contributors on how to store data to maximize their discoverability, facilitate their efficient reuse, and add value to individual datasets. For data users, the reporting format will better allow data repositories to optimize data search and extraction, and more readily integrate similar data into harmonized synthesis products. The reporting format provides templates and guidance for the reporting of metadata for UAS experimental campaigns, individual flights, platform and sensor description. To improve data access and discoverability, the reporting format proposes a data description scheme of Levels based on the degree of processing, where Level 0 includes raw data, through to Level 3 being derived data end products. A range of examples of data types for each Level are given, with suggested file naming schemes. The reporting format presented here is intended to form a foundation for future development that will accommodate new UAS technologies and approaches to data access and use in the future. The reporting format documentation is maintained and updated on the ESS-DIVE Community Space GitHub at https://github.com/ess-dive-community/essdive-uas. This data package is the first published version of this reporting format, and comprises a zip file of the complete content of https://github.com/ess-dive-community/essdive-uas v1.0. The zip contains the reporting format description, instructions and variable definitions in GitHub markdown language (*.md) and metadata templates in csv format. The reporting format is designed to be compatible with other ESS-DIVE formats, and it is specifically recommended that this reporting format be used in conjunction with the File-level metadata (FLMD) and comma separated values (csv) reporting formats for submission to the ESS-DIVE repository.
Purpose: Describe a Web-based Radiation Oncology Incident Reporting and Learning system that has the potential to improve quality of care for radiation therapy patients. This system is an important facet of continuing effort by our community to maintain and improve safety of radiotherapy.Material and Methods: The VA National Radiation Oncology Program office has embarked on a program to electronically collect adverse events and near miss data of radiation treatment of over 25,000 veterans treated with radiotherapy annually. Software used for this program is deployed on the VAs intranet as a Website. All data entry forms (adverse event or near miss reports, work product reports) utilize standard causal, RT process step taxonomies and data dictionaries defined in AAPM and ASTRO reports on error reporting (AAPM Work Group Report on Prevention of Errors and ASTROs safety is no accident report). All reported incidents are investigated by the radiation oncology domain experts. This system encompasses the entire feedback loop of reporting an incident, analyzing it for salient details, and developing interventions to prevent it from happening again. The operational workflow is similar to that of the Aviation Safety Reporting System. This system is also synergistic with ROSIS and SAFRON. Results: The ROIRLS facilitates the collection of data that help in tracking adverse events and near misses and develop new interventions to prevent such incidents. The ROIRLS electronic infrastructure is fully integrated with each registered facility profile data thus minimizing key strokes and multiple entries by the event reporters. Conclusions: OIRLS is expected to improve the quality and safety of a broad spectrum of radiation therapy patients treated in the VA and fulfills our goal of Effecting Quality While Treating Safely The Radiation Oncology Incident Reporting and Learning System software used for this program has been developed, conceptualized and maintained by TSG Innovations Inc. and is deployed on the VA intranet as a Website. The Radiation Oncology Incident Reporting and Learning System software used for this program has been developed, conceptualized and maintained by TSG Innovations Inc. and is deployed on the VA intranet as a Website.
Purpose: This Web-based Radiotherapy Incident Reporting and Analysis System (RIRAS) is a tool to improve quality of care for radiation therapy patients. This system is an important facet of continuing effort by our community to maintain and improve safety of radiotherapy.Material and Methods: VA’s National Radiation Oncology Program office has embarked on a program to electronically collect adverse events and good-catch data of radiation treatment of over 25,000 veterans treated with radiotherapy annually. This VA-Intranet based software design has made use of dataset taxonomies and data dictionaries defined in AAPM/ASTRO reports on error reporting. We used proven industrial and medical event reporting techniques to avoid several common problems faced in effective data collection such as incomplete data due to data entry fatigue by the reporters, missing data due to data difficult to obtain or not familiar to most reporters, missing reports due to fear of reprisal etc. This system encompasses the entire feedback loop of reporting an incident, analyzing it for salient details, and developing interventions to prevent it from happening again. The analysis reports with corrective, learning actions are shared with the reporter/facility and made public to the community (after deidentification) as part of the learning process. Results: Till date 50 incident/good catches have been reported in RIRAS and we have completed analysis on 100% of these reports. This is done due to the fact that each reported incidents is investigated and a complete analysis/patient-safety-work-product report is generated by radiation oncology domain-experts. Conclusions Because of the completeness of the data, the system has enabled us to analyze process steps and track trends of major errors which in the future will lead to implementing system wide process improvement steps and safe standard operating procedures for each radiotherapy treatment modality/technique and fulfills our goal of “Effecting Quality While Treating Safely”. RIRAS developed and copyrighted by TSG Innovations Inc.
Background & Purpose: RIRAS is a web-based information system deployed on the Veterans Health Administration intranet in early 2014 to collect adverse events and good catch data; analyze the causes and contributing factors; and find ways to prevent future occurrences. Material and Methods: Incident learning consists of a feedback loop which starts with reporting an event, followed by analysis of contributing factors, and culminates in the development of a patient safety work product (PSWP) to prevent recurrence. RIRAS permits both anonymous and non-anonymous reporting. Each report is analyzed by a team of medical physicists who are independent of the reporting facility. The analysts usually contact the reporting facilities for additional information. We analyzed all reports and held telephonic interviews (when necessary) with the reporters. We then generated PSWPs with corrective/preventive and learning actions. Anonymous reporting is handled in the same manner, except without the ability to further interview the reporter. Results: In a significant number of reports, the causes and recommended preventive actions were considerably altered by the independent analysis and additional information from the facility. 130 reports have been entered in RIRAS; 9 misadministrations, 83 good catches, 3 anonymous good catches, and 35 earlier reported incidents from FY2005-14. 45% of the reported incidents occurred in the treatment delivery stages, 19% in on-treatment management, and 16% in pre-treatment verification. 80% of the good catches were found in the treatment delivery workflow. Majority of these incidents were due to inconsistent patient setup instructions or documentation, nonadherence to policies and procedures, lax time-out policy, distracted RTTs, and inadequate RTT staffing. Conclusion: RIRAS has identified many areas for improvement and elevated the quality and safety of radiation treatments in the VHA. We found that the ability to learn is significantly diminished when the analysts do not have the ability to request additional information.
The objective of this work was to determine the realization rate of energy and cost savings from the Department of Energy’s Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) program based on information reported by the energy services companies (ESCOs) that are carrying out ESPC projects at federal sites. Information was extracted from 156 Measurement and Verification (M&V) reports to determine reported, estimated, and guaranteed cost savings and reported and estimated energy savings for the previous contract year. Because the quality of the reports varied, it was not possible to determine all of these parameters for each project. For all 156 projects, there was sufficient information to compare estimated, reported, and guaranteed cost savings. For this group, the total estimated cost savings for the reporting periods addressed were $\$$210.6 million, total reported cost savings were $\$$215.1 million, and total guaranteed cost savings were $\$$$204.5 million. This means that on average: ESPC contractors guaranteed 97% of the estimated cost savings; projects reported achieving 102% of the estimated cost savings; and projects reported achieving 105% of the guaranteed cost savings. For 155 of the projects examined, there was sufficient information to compare estimated and reported energy savings. On the basis of site energy, estimated savings for those projects for the previous year totaled 11.938 million MMBtu, and reported savings were 12.138 million MMBtu, 101.7% of the estimated energy savings. On the basis of source energy, total estimated energy savings for the 155 projects were 19.052 million MMBtu, and reported saving were 19.516 million MMBtu, 102.4% of the estimated energy savings.