Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"With its emphasis on examples, exercises and calculations, this book suits advanced undergraduates as well as postgraduates and practitioners. It provides a clear treatment of the scope and limitations of mean-variance portfolio theory and introduces popular modern risk measures. Proofs are given in detail, assuming only modest mathematical background, but with attention to clarity and rigour. The discussion of VaR and its more robust generalizations, such as AVaR, brings recent developments in risk measures within range of some undergraduate courses and includes a novel discussion of reducing VaR and AVaR by means of hedging techniques. A moderate pace, careful motivation and more than 70 exercises give students confidence in handling risk assessments in modern finance. Solutions and additional materials for instructors are available at www.cambridge.org/9781107003675\"-- Provided by publisher.

Risk management has reduced vulnerability to floods and droughts globally 1 , 2 , yet their impacts are still increasing 3 . An improved understanding of the causes of changing impacts is therefore needed, but has been hampered by a lack of empirical data 4 , 5 . On the basis of a global dataset of 45 pairs of events that occurred within the same area, we show that risk management generally reduces the impacts of floods and droughts but faces difficulties in reducing the impacts of unprecedented events of a magnitude not previously experienced. If the second event was much more hazardous than the first, its impact was almost always higher. This is because management was not designed to deal with such extreme events: for example, they exceeded the design levels of levees and reservoirs. In two success stories, the impact of the second, more hazardous, event was lower, as a result of improved risk management governance and high investment in integrated management. The observed difficulty of managing unprecedented events is alarming, given that more extreme hydrological events are projected owing to climate change 3 . Unprecedented floods and droughts bring new challenges for risk reduction, as is clear from this analysis of the drivers of changing impacts in many cases worldwide, with implications for efficient governance and investment in integrated management.

\"A ground shaking exposé on the failure of popular cyber risk management methods How to Measure Anything in Cybersecurity Risk exposes the shortcomings of current \"risk management\" practices, and offers a series of improvement techniques that help you fill the holes and ramp up security. In his bestselling book How to Measure Anything, author Douglas W. Hubbard opened the business world's eyes to the critical need for better measurement. This book expands upon that premise and draws from The Failure of Risk Management to sound the alarm in the cybersecurity realm. Some of the field's premier risk management approaches actually create more risk than they mitigate, and questionable methods have been duplicated across industries and embedded in the products accepted as gospel. This book sheds light on these blatant risks, and provides alternate techniques that can help improve your current situation. You'll also learn which approaches are too risky to save, and are actually more damaging than a total lack of any security.  Dangerous risk management methods abound; there is no industry more critically in need of solutions than cybersecurity. This book provides solutions where they exist, and advises when to change tracks entirely. Discover the shortcomings of cybersecurity's \"best practices\" Learn which risk management approaches actually create risk Improve your current practices with practical alterations Learn which methods are beyond saving, and worse than doing nothing Insightful and enlightening, this book will inspire a closer examination of your company's own risk management practices in the context of cybersecurity. The end goal is airtight data protection, so finding cracks in the vault is a positive thing—as long as you get there before the bad guys do. How to Measure Anything in Cybersecurity Risk is your guide to more robust protection through better quantitative processes, approaches, and techniques\"-- Provided by publisher.

Canada is a country in the midst of a flood management policy transition that is shifting part of the flood damage burden from the state to homeowners. This transition—as well as the large financial losses resulting from flooding—have created a window of opportunity for Canada to implement strategies that increase property owners' capacity to avoid and absorb the financial and physical risks associated with flooding. This work presents foundational research into the extent to which Canadians' flood experience, perceptions of flood risks and socio-demographics shape their intentions and adoption of property level flood protection (PLFP). A bilingual, national survey was deployed in Spring 2016 and was completed by 2300 respondents across all 10 Canadian provinces. The survey was developed using assumptions in existing literature on flood risk behaviours and the determinants of flood risk management in similar jurisdictions. The paper argues that property owners are not willing to accept greater responsibility for flood risk as envisioned by recent policy changes. This finding is consistent with other OECD jurisdictions, where flood risk engagement strategies have been developed that could be replicated in Canada to encourage risk-sharing behaviour.

To (i) compare medication errors identified at audit and observation with medication incident reports; (ii) identify differences between two hospitals in incident report frequency and medication error rates; (iii) identify prescribing error detection rates by staff. Audit of 3291 patient records at two hospitals to identify prescribing errors and evidence of their detection by staff. Medication administration errors were identified from a direct observational study of 180 nurses administering 7451 medications. Severity of errors was classified. Those likely to lead to patient harm were categorized as 'clinically important'. Two major academic teaching hospitals in Sydney, Australia. Rates of medication errors identified from audit and from direct observation were compared with reported medication incident reports. A total of 12 567 prescribing errors were identified at audit. Of these 1.2/1000 errors (95% CI: 0.6-1.8) had incident reports. Clinically important prescribing errors (n = 539) were detected by staff at a rate of 218.9/1000 (95% CI: 184.0-253.8), but only 13.0/1000 (95% CI: 3.4-22.5) were reported. 78.1% (n = 421) of clinically important prescribing errors were not detected. A total of 2043 drug administrations (27.4%; 95% CI: 26.4-28.4%) contained ≥ 1 errors; none had an incident report. Hospital A had a higher frequency of incident reports than Hospital B, but a lower rate of errors at audit. Prescribing errors with the potential to cause harm frequently go undetected. Reported incidents do not reflect the profile of medication errors which occur in hospitals or the underlying rates. This demonstrates the inaccuracy of using incident frequency to compare patient risk or quality performance within or across hospitals. New approaches including data mining of electronic clinical information systems are required to support more effective medication error detection and mitigation.

The National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) collects reports about patient safety incidents in England. Government regulators use NRLS data to assess the safety of hospitals. This study aims to examine whether annual hospital incident reporting rates can be used as a surrogate indicator of individual hospital safety. Secondly assesses which hospital characteristics are correlated with high incident reporting rates and whether a high reporting hospital is safer than those lower reporting hospitals. Finally, it assesses which health-care professionals report more incidents of patient harm, which report more near miss incidents and what hospital factors encourage reporting. These findings may suggest methods for increasing the utility of reporting systems. This study used a mix methods approach for assessing NRLS data. The data were investigated using Pareto analysis and regression models to establish which patients are most vulnerable to reported harm. Hospital factors were correlated with institutional reporting rates over one year to examine what factors influenced reporting. Staff survey findings regarding hospital safety culture were correlated with reported rates of incidents causing harm; no harm and death to understand what barriers influence error disclosure. 5,879,954 incident reports were collected from acute hospitals over the decade. 70.3% of incidents produced no harm to the patient and 0.9% were judged by the reporter to have caused severe harm or death. Obstetrics and Gynaecology reported the most no harm events [OR 1.61(95%CI: 1.12 to 2.27), p<0.01] and pharmacy was the hospital location where most near-misses were captured [OR 3.03(95%CI: 2.04 to 4.55), p<0.01]. Clinicians were significantly more likely to report death than other staff [OR 3.04(95%CI: 2.43 to 3.80) p<0.01]. A higher ratio of clinicians to beds correlated with reduced rate of harm reported [RR = -1.78(95%Cl: -3.33 to -0.23), p = 0.03]. Litigation claims per bed were significantly negatively associated with incident reports. Patient satisfaction and mortality outcomes were not significantly associated with reporting rates. Staff survey responses revealed that keeping reports confidential, keeping staff informed about incidents and giving feedback on safety initiatives increased reporting rates [r = 0.26 (p<0.01), r = 0.17 (p = 0.04), r = 0.23 (p = 0.01), r = 0.20 (p = 0.02)]. The NRLS is the largest patient safety reporting system in the world. This study did not demonstrate many hospital characteristics to significantly influence overall reporting rate. There were no association between size of hospital, number of staff, mortality outcomes or patient satisfaction outcomes and incident reporting rate. The study did show that hospitals where staff reported more incidents had reduced litigation claims and when clinician staffing is increased fewer incidents reporting patient harm are reported, whilst near misses remain the same. Certain specialties report more near misses than others, and doctors report more harm incidents than near misses. Staff survey results showed that open environments and reduced fear of punitive response increases incident reporting. We suggest that reporting rates should not be used to assess hospital safety. Different healthcare professionals focus on different types of safety incidents and focusing on these areas whilst creating a responsive, confidential learning environment will increase staff engagement with error disclosure.

Patient safety incidents are underreported, and report handlers, usually unit managers, are dissatisfied with the incident reporting software's handling features. To (1) identify the handling features of patient safety incident reporting software that support and challenge report processing; (2) determine which features report handlers believe should be added and (3) describe processing shortcomings from reporters' perspectives. A cross-sectional study with a descriptive qualitative design. A descriptive qualitative cross-sectional study was conducted in two Finnish wellbeing service counties between January and February 2024. A total of 755 participants who used patient safety incident reporting software completed the Users' Perceptions of Patient Safety Incident Reporting Software survey. Their free-text responses (  = 117) were analysed using qualitative inductive content analysis. Most respondents (66%) had a nursing background, and over half (51%) handled reports. Respondents had varying perceptions of software handling features that supported or challenged report processing, and they identified more features as challenging than supportive. They suggested changes to the anonymity and visibility of reports and the technical handiness of software. Respondents described the following report processing shortcomings: reports were not discussed within workplaces; discussion caused blaming; no concrete changes occurred after reporting; reporters did not hear about reports after reporting; reported incidents were underestimated and processing was not objective. The findings indicate that it is time to critically evaluate the usefulness of reporting software. Incident report handlers need optimum tools to process valuable client and patient safety information. Furthermore, incident report processing procedures require changes to assure reporters that it is meaningful and secure to report all patient safety incidents they observe or are involved in. This study highlights the need for improvements in incident reporting software from the perspective of report processing. Additionally, report processing structures and methods must be clarified.

This study aimed to assess country-specific evidence of physical and non-physical acts of workplace violence towards nurses working in the health sector in 5 European countries, and then to identify reasons for not reporting violence experienced at work. This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted in 5 participating countries (Poland, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Turkey, and Spain). All registered nurses working in selected healthcare settings for at least 1 year were invited to participate in the study. A questionnaire adapted from the , developed jointly by the International Labour Office, the International Council of Nurses, the World Health Organization and Public Services International, was used. The selection of healthcare settings and the distribution of the questionnaire were conducted according to the recommendations of the questionnaire authors. In total, 1089 nurses submitted completed questionnaires which could be included in the study. Of these, 54% stated that they had been exposed to non-physical violence and 20% had been exposed to physical violent acts. A total of 15% of the surveyed nurses experienced both forms of workplace violence. In addition, 18% of the respondents confirmed having witnessed physical violence in their workplace. The most common perpetrators were patients and patients' relatives. In about 70% of these cases, no actions were taken after the act of violence to investigate its causes. About half of the study group did not report workplace violence as they believed it was useless or not important. The most common consequences of workplace violence included being \"superalert\" or watchful and on guard. Nurses internationally are both victims of and witnesses to workplace violence. Workplace violence is often seen by nurses as an occupational hazard and, as such, it remains not reported. The first step in preventing workplace violence is not only to acknowledge its existence but also to ensure the appropriate reporting of violent acts. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2020;33(3):325-38.