[Delphi Xe6 Serial Number 66
Sharif Garmon
I want something like a function where I can pass in the month number and get back the name for the month or perhaps even a function where I pass in a TDate and get back the month name for that TDate.
I've specified US English locale because that's what you asked for in the question. But of course you could use different locales, or not specify a locale in which case the user's locale would be used.
Upto RS10.3 I used to use Andreas Hausladen DDevExtensions to set my version number in my project sources to be the same for all modules (bpl's/exe), but unfortunately Andreas has stopped updating his tool for RS10.4 and later.
Another advantage would be that having one central version number and (c) file is also a lot better in svn change management since I don't have to commit each and every .dproj file because of the version/build number change.
Just had to create these 2 files, set version info in the delphi dproj file to OFF, and then add the specific .rc file to the module's dproj where I want it to appear, in this case a minor delphi project:
Please note: Plain text e-mail (non-encrypted) is not secure and should not be used to communicate confidential, sensitive, and/or personal information. The confidentiality and security of information sent via e-mail cannot be guaranteed. Confidential, sensitive, and/or personal information includes, but is not limited to, your social security number, driver's license number, state identification card number, bank account number, credit card number, debit card number, medical information, etc. By submitting information via e-mail to this office, you hereby agree that none of the information contained in your communication is confidential, sensitive, or personal. You further agree that this office and the web hosting company shall not be held liable for any breach of confidentiality, breach of security, or similar cause of action resulting from use of e-mail with this office, including any liability for the negligent handling, use, or storage of information contained in your e-mail. Please call our office if you wish to provide sensitive information.
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
Psychiatric inpatient bed capacities vary between countries [1] and international consensus is lacking on how many psychiatric beds should be available for optimal functioning of mental health systems. The bed rates in low (median 1.9 beds per 100,000), lower-middle (median 6.3 beds per 100,000), and upper-middle-income (median 24.3 beds per 100,000) countries (LMICs) are, on average, much lower than in high-income (median 52.6 beds per 100,000) countries (HICs) and in the OECD (mean 62 beds per 100,000) [1, 2]. Variations in the provision of psychiatric beds, even among OECD member countries [3], can only partially be explained by geographical location and income levels [4]. Several contextual factors may have an impact on this variation. These include demographic characteristics of the population [5, 6], mental health budgets [7], morbidity levels, migration, and local poverty [8], the availability of social support services [9, 10], incarceration rates [11], availability of psychiatric outpatient and residential services, mental health stigmatization levels and the continuity of mental health care across sectors [12]. Especially home treatment, such as multidisciplinary crisis resolution teams, and assertive outreach treatment may reduce the need for hospitalization in highly resourced care systems.
The expert consensus approaches may serve as guidance when strict epidemiological estimations are impractical. It is a valuable resource as a basis for decision-making where experimental evidence is not available or when the subject is not easy to study otherwise [13]. This is especially the case in the complex area of resource utilization in mental health care [14]. The required number of psychiatric beds is still a matter of debate and attempts to find a consensus among experts have been limited to HICs [15, 16]. On the basis of expert opinion, Canadian and American organizations have recommended a target of 50 publicly funded psychiatric beds per 100,000 population [15, 17]. However, the recommendations do not specify how the experts arrived at their consensus estimates and do not consider the situation in LMICs [18].
Therefore, the aim of this study was to reach a global expert consensus on the minimum and optimal psychiatric bed numbers. We also aimed to explore factors that may be considered relevant for local planning.
The members of the Board were asked to propose at least 12 professionals with experience in the field of psychiatric service development, especially researchers with published scientific articles related to the topic, and mental health service managers at a local (institutional) or regional/national level. Board members were asked to consider experts from different disciplines (i.e., psychiatrists, psychologists, mental health nurses, administrators, user- and family-organizations) and from all WHO regions.
Based on proposals by Board members, 158 potential experts were sent two invitations via email between August 5 and August 31, 2020 to be part of the Delphi panel. Of the 158 experts invited, 83 declined to participate or did not respond to the invitation. A panel of 75 members was formed and were contacted for the second round. We established a priori that only rounds with at least 30 participants would be included in the analyses.
Multiple-choice questions to characterize the Delphi panel were also included in the surveys. The income level of the countries where the panel members were working was based on the World Bank classification [22]. The geographical distribution was based on the six WHO regions [23]. Because of important cultural and socio-economic differences, the Region of the Americas (Pan American Health Organization [PAHO]) was divided into two subregions: PAHO North America (including the United States and Canada) and PAHO Latin America and the Caribbean (including all the remaining countries of PAHO). Professional background (psychiatrist, other mental health professional, or other professions), areas of expertise (clinical, research/academia, administration, and policy), gender, and age were all recorded.
Regarding the numbers that were requested, we did not expect normal distribution. Therefore, median values and IQR, as well as mean and standard deviation (SD), were calculated for each indicator. Median values and interquartile ranges (IQR) resulting from the first round were provided to panel members in order to reconsider their response in an effort to improve consensus. The consensus was considered to be reached if at least 85% of the responses from the last round fell between the first and third quartiles of the answers given in the first round [24]. Extreme outliers were retrospectively identified and excluded based on the 3*IQR rule [25]. Second round responses were also assessed by income group and WHO region.
In the first round we received 63 responses and in the second round 61 responses from respondents from 40 different countries representing all six WHO regions. Composition of the Delphi panel in the first and second round was similar although four panel members responded to the first round but not the second one, and two panel members only responded to the second round without having answered the first one. The characteristics of the panel are shown in Table 1. More details on the panel members are provided in the supplementary material (Table S1).
In the second round, more than 85% of responses for all four indicators fell between the first and third quartiles of the first round. Consequently, the high dispersion of responses found in the first round was reduced in the second round, which was evidenced in the proximity of means and medians of the second round and in the IQR and SD values (Fig. 1). The consensus was reached that 30 to 60 psychiatric beds per 100,000 population was an acceptable range, with 30 as a minimum and 60 an optimal rate. Rates between 25 and 30 were defined as mild shortage, while 15 to 25 defined moderate shortage. Rates lower than 15 beds per 100,000 were considered a severe shortage of psychiatric beds.
The panel provided 1408 responses for factors that should be considered for planning psychiatric bed numbers. After removing duplicate concepts, 471 contextual factors remained that were subjected to a thematic analysis. They were grouped into 60 codes representing comprehensive factors within six thematic groups that were fed back to the panel in the second round. Consensus was reached on 29 out of the 60 factors (85% responses of very important or essential), which are reported in the Online Supplement (Supplementary Table S2). The factors Comprehensive community care and continuity of care, Quality and standards of mental health care, and Mental health budget reached the highest consensus (97% responses of very important or essential).
There was a global consensus on the role of efficient discharge planning and the capacities of outpatient and residential services for the capacity planning of inpatient mental health facilities [33, 34]. The quality and standards of mental health care were a major concern, especially in LMICs, probably reflecting the concern for minimum standards of care that apart from the physical infrastructure of the bed also lack sufficient human resources, availability of medication and equipment to run existing facilities [35, 36]. The mental health budget was another major consensus factor for psychiatric bed planning. Low budgets can account for both shortage and inefficient distribution of mental health resources [37, 38]. Similar contextual factors had been identified in a recent systematic review on expert arguments for trends of psychiatric beds [39]. However, the present study provides a hierarchy of importance for the expert arguments.
795a8134c1