<p><strong>Introduction.</strong> Conflict is a process during which one person consciously and intentionally makes an effort to prevent the other person&rsquo;s efforts, some kind of blockade that will lead to interruption in achieving the goals and interests of the other person. Conflicts in the healthcare team are common and can lead to reduced productivity in the work of healthcare professionals, which can have a negative impact on the care and treatment of patients. <strong>Methods. </strong>This cross-sectional study involved 100 health professionals, nurses and doctors employed in the primary, secondary and tertiary levels of health care. The research was conducted from March to August 2020. A questionnaire on socio-demographic characteristics of respondents, a questionnaire on conflicts of health professionals, and a standardized scale of depression, anxiety and stress with 21 questions (DASS-21) were used to measure the level of subjective depression, anxiety and stress <strong>Results.</strong> Seventy-four health workers (74%) had experience of conflict in the workplace, doctors (95%) significantly more often than nurses (58%) (p=0.001). Forty percent of health workers stated that communication problems were the most common cause of conflict. Seventy-nine respondents (79%) chose cooperation and compromise as a style in conflict resolution. Doctors chose cooperation more often (84%) than nurses (74%) and the difference was statistically significant (p=0.048). Subjects who had experience of conflict had significantly higher average values of anxiety (8.01&plusmn;2.12) (p=0.026) and stress (10.32&plusmn;2.91) (p=0.008) compared to subjects who had no experience of conflict (6.13&plusmn;1.91; 6.12&plusmn;2.03). <strong>Conclusion.</strong> Doctors were significantly more likely to have conflict situations in the workplace. For conflict resolution doctors were more likely to choose a style of cooperation and compromise than nurses who were more likely to choose a style of conflict avoidance.</p>

Introduction. The patient and his safety should be at the center of quality health care, which is a challenge for every health system. Adverse patient outcomes (APO) are defined as damage caused by a drug or other intervention in a primary, secondary or tertiary health care facility, which results in a complication of the primary or the emergence of a new disease or injury. The aim of our study was to determine how frequent the APO are, and to determine the differences between nurses and doctors in the frequency, causes and attitudes towards APO. Methods. This cross-sectional study included 100 health professionals, nurses and medical doctors employed at the primary and secondary level of health care. The research was conducted in the period from May to October 2020. The questionnaire was partially taken from a general questionnaire offered on the website of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the standardized Perceived stress scale was used to measure the degree of subjective stress. Results. Forty-four health professionals (44%) experienced adverse patient outcomes in their career, doctors (52%) significantly more often than nurses (36%) (p = 0.039). More than a half of respondents (52.3%) declared that APO happens few times a month. Seventy percent of the respondents blame their own stress burden as the main factor associated with APO. Doctors more often than nurses (69.2%) blame problems in communication between health professionals as the main cause of APO (27.8%) (p = 0.046). Conclusion. For doctors, the main cause of APO is problem in communication, while nurses more often think that patient safety is priority when compared to doctors. Almost two thirds of respondents blame their own stress burden as a factor associated with APO.

Byzantine fault-tolerant state-machine replication (BFT-SMR) is a technique for hardening systems to tolerate arbitrary faults. Although robust, BFT-SMR protocols are very costly in terms of the number of required replicas (3f+1 to tolerate f faults) and of exchanged messages. However, with "hybrid" architectures, where "normal" components trust some "special" components to provide properties in a trustworthy manner, the cost of using BFT can be dramatically reduced. Unfortunately, even though such hybridization techniques decrease the message/time/space complexity of BFT protocols, they also increase their structural complexity. Therefore, we introduce Asphalion, the first theorem prover-based framework for verifying implementations of hybrid systems and protocols. It relies on three novel languages: (1) HyLoE: a Hybrid Logic of Events to reason about hybrid fault models; (2) MoC: a Monadic Component language to implement systems as collections of interacting hybrid components; and (3) LoCK: a sound Logic of events-based Calculus of Knowledge to reason about both homogeneous and hybrid systems at a high-level of abstraction (thereby allowing reusing proofs, and capturing the high-level logic of distributed systems). In addition, Asphalion supports compositional reasoning, e.g., through mechanisms to lift properties about trusted-trustworthy components, to the level of the distributed systems they are integrated in. As a case study, we have verified crucial safety properties (e.g., agreement) of several implementations of hybrid protocols.

Byzantine fault-tolerant state-machine replication (BFT-SMR) is a technique for hardening systems to tolerate arbitrary faults. Although robust, BFT-SMR protocols are very costly in terms of the number of required replicas (3 f + 1 to tolerate f faults) and of exchanged messages. However, with łhybridž architectures, where łnormalž components trust some łspecialž components to provide properties in a trustworthy manner, the cost of using BFT can be dramatically reduced. Unfortunately, even though such hybridization techniques decrease the message/time/space complexity of BFT protocols, they also increase their structural complexity. Therefore, we introduce Asphalion, the first theorem prover-based framework for verifying implementations of hybrid systems and protocols. It relies on three novel languages: (1) HyLoE: a Hybrid Logic of Events to reason about hybrid fault models; (2) MoC: a Monadic Component language to implement systems as collections of interacting hybrid components; and (3) LoCK: a sound Logic of events-based Calculus of Knowledge to reason about both homogeneous and hybrid systems at a high-level of abstraction (thereby allowing reusing proofs, and capturing the high-level logic of distributed systems). In addition, Asphalion supports compositional reasoning, e.g., through mechanisms to lift properties about trusted-trustworthy components, to the level of the distributed systems they are integrated in. As a case study, we have verified crucial safety properties (e.g., agreement) of several implementations of hybrid protocols.

Byzantine fault-tolerant state-machine replication (BFT-SMR) is a technique for hardening systems to tolerate arbitrary faults. Although robust, BFT-SMR protocols are very costly in terms of the number of required replicas (3 f + 1 to tolerate f faults) and of exchanged messages. However, with łhybridž architectures, where łnormalž components trust some łspecialž components to provide properties in a trustworthy manner, the cost of using BFT can be dramatically reduced. Unfortunately, even though such hybridization techniques decrease the message/time/space complexity of BFT protocols, they also increase their structural complexity. Therefore, we introduce Asphalion, the first theorem prover-based framework for verifying implementations of hybrid systems and protocols. It relies on three novel languages: (1) HyLoE: a Hybrid Logic of Events to reason about hybrid fault models; (2) MoC: a Monadic Component language to implement systems as collections of interacting hybrid components; and (3) LoCK: a sound Logic of events-based Calculus of Knowledge to reason about both homogeneous and hybrid systems at a high-level of abstraction (thereby allowing reusing proofs, and capturing the high-level logic of distributed systems). In addition, Asphalion supports compositional reasoning, e.g., through mechanisms to lift properties about trusted-trustworthy components, to the level of the distributed systems they are integrated in. As a case study, we have verified crucial safety properties (e.g., agreement) of several implementations of hybrid protocols.

We formalize the soundness theorem for differential dynamic logic, a logic for verifying hybrid systems. To increase confidence in the formalization, we present two versions: one in Isabelle/HOL and one in Coq. We extend the metatheory to include features used in practice, such as systems of differential equations and functions of multiple arguments. We demonstrate the viability of constructing a verified kernel for the hybrid systems theorem prover KeYmaera X by embedding proof checkers for differential dynamic logic in Coq and Isabelle. We discuss how different provers and libraries influence the design of the formalization.

We formalize the soundness theorem for differential dynamic logic, a logic for verifying hybrid systems. To increase confidence in the formalization, we present two versions: one in Isabelle/HOL and one in Coq. We extend the metatheory to include features used in practice, such as systems of differential equations and functions of multiple arguments. We demonstrate the viability of constructing a verified kernel for the hybrid systems theorem prover KeYmaera X by embedding proof checkers for differential dynamic logic in Coq and Isabelle. We discuss how different provers and libraries influence the design of the formalization

Summary. RIP and EIGRP are two basic protocols which are used in small networks. Evaluation of performances is necessary for the selection of protocol which will best suit to the specific requirements of computer network as well as for the detection of errors. This paper shows comparison of two performance indicators: time of convergence and message sending time. Time of convergence is evaluated using mathematical means, measurements and simulation method. On the other hand, message sending time is evaluated using mathematical and simulation methods.