Current Capacity. Provide a realistic estimate of the available capacity for use by RQHR within your facility during the term of the anticipated agreement. NUMBER of Equipped O.R. Theatres/Procedure Rooms NUMBER of O.R. Theatres/ Procedure Rooms Currently Operating HOURS of Operation for Equipped O.R. Theatres/ Procedure Rooms NUMBER of O.R. Theatres/Procedure Rooms Currently Staffed NUMBER of O.R. Theatres/Procedure Rooms Needed to Meet this Proposal NUMBER of Patients that may be accommodated in the Post-Sedation Recovery area at the same time
Current Capacity. The current capacity to produce safe drinking water on any day is referred to “Current Capacity” or C Total. Current Capacity is defined as the amount of water CIWW can and deliver on any day taking into consideration raw water availability and quality, seasonal treatment efficacy, and any mechanical or operational issues on that given day. The number will vary seasonally and may vary day to day depending on specific water quality and operational conditions. Current Capacity is computed as the sum of the daily capacities of the individual CIWW source treatment plants and may be expressed in the following formula: C Total = C Fleur + C XxXxxxxx + C Saylorville + C WDMWW + C PolkCity+C Altoona Current Capacity will be evaluated on a daily basis when there is potential for a water shortage. Staff responsible for CIWW water production will perform the daily evaluation and report the Current Capacity in Million Gallons per Day.
Current Capacity. Provide a realistic estimate of the available capacity for use by RQHR within your facility during the term of the anticipated agreement. NUMBER of Equipped O.R. Theatres NUMBER of O.R. Theatres Currently Operating HOURS of Operation for Equipped O.R. Theatres NUMBER of O.R. Theatres Currently Staffed NUMBER of O.R. Theatres Needed to Meet this Proposal NUMBER of Patients that may be accommodated in the Post Anesthetic Recovery Room (PACU) at the same time
Current Capacity. The current provision of training and development is described in Section 3 of this report. There is little evidence which suggests that there is a lack of capacity amongst providers ‘to deliver what is currently delivered’, other than due to funding limitations. Key barriers to increasing delivery capacity include: • Lack of funding. Capacity is ultimately controlled by the amount of overall funding. For both FE and non-FE providers, recent LSC moves towards a reduction in funding for 19+, together with lack of LSC funding for short courses to meet a specific need (in particular, non-accredited provision) limits delivery capacity. For FE, this is exacerbated by the increasing focus on colleges as ‘primary’ / ‘initial’ providers and for non-FE providers, by an overall reduction in funding available to them. • Shortages of appropriate staff in particular assessors and verifiers, but also tutors in some cases, This often relates to not being able to pay tutors at a level commensurate with their expertise. • Lack of market awareness and knowledge amongst providers. • Difficulties for non-FE providers who have to establish franchise arrangements with FE colleges as a main route to funding. • Practical considerations including lack of suitable space for delivery; travel difficulties for participants. Key opportunities for increasing delivery capacity include: • Access to increasing funding support (eg via Train to Gain, as noted in the Xxxxxx report42) and in particular, work-related Level 2 training. • A more coherent, consistent, facilitative and sustainable approach to funding sources, both mainstream and ‘project-based’, enabling providers easier, less bureaucratic and more timely access, therefore increasing capacity to the benefit of learners. • Measures to increase the number of quality assessors and the perception of staff that assessment can be integral to other job roles rather than a stand-alone function. Also, increased training of senior staff and managers to facilitate the assessment process and being able to pay at a level commensurate with qualifications and expertise. • Measures to increase the number of internal verifiers, for example CPD opportunities and ‘sharing’ the pool of verifiers between providers.
