We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Background: Healthcare facilities have experienced many challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, including limited personal protective equipment (PPE) supplies. Healthcare personnel (HCP) rely on PPE, vaccines, and other infection control measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections. We describe PPE concerns reported by HCP who had close contact with COVID-19 patients in the workplace and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Method: The CDC collaborated with Emerging Infections Program (EIP) sites in 10 states to conduct surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 infections in HCP. EIP staff interviewed HCP with positive SARS-CoV-2 viral tests (ie, cases) to collect data on demographics, healthcare roles, exposures, PPE use, and concerns about their PPE use during COVID-19 patient care in the 14 days before the HCP’s SARS-CoV-2 positive test. PPE concerns were qualitatively coded as being related to supply (eg, low quality, shortages); use (eg, extended use, reuse, lack of fit test); or facility policy (eg, lack of guidance). We calculated and compared the percentages of cases reporting each concern type during the initial phase of the pandemic (April–May 2020), during the first US peak of daily COVID-19 cases (June–August 2020), and during the second US peak (September 2020–January 2021). We compared percentages using mid-P or Fisher exact tests (α = 0.05). Results: Among 1,998 HCP cases occurring during April 2020–January 2021 who had close contact with COVID-19 patients, 613 (30.7%) reported ≥1 PPE concern (Table 1). The percentage of cases reporting supply or use concerns was higher during the first peak period than the second peak period (supply concerns: 12.5% vs 7.5%; use concerns: 25.5% vs 18.2%; p Conclusions: Although lower percentages of HCP cases overall reported PPE concerns after the first US peak, our results highlight the importance of developing capacity to produce and distribute PPE during times of increased demand. The difference we observed among selected groups of cases may indicate that PPE access and use were more challenging for some, such as nonphysicians and nursing home HCP. These findings underscore the need to ensure that PPE is accessible and used correctly by HCP for whom use is recommended.
Introduction: Opioid overdoses (OODs) have become a public health emergency, yet little is known about their long-term outcomes following an OD. We determined the one-year all-cause mortality and associated risk factors in a cohort of patients treated in an urban emergency department (ED) for an OOD. Methods: We reviewed records of all patients who visited St. Paul's Hospital ED from January 2013 to August 2017 and had a discharge diagnosis of OOD or had received naloxone in the ED as per pharmacy records. Patients with a suspected OOD were identified on structured chart review. A patient's first visit for an OOD during the study period was used as the index visit, with subsequent visits excluded. The primary outcome was mortality during the year after the index visit. Mortality was assessed by linking patient electronic medical records with Vital Statistics data. Deaths that occurred in the ED on the index visit were excluded. Patients admitted to hospital following ED treatment were included in this study. We described patient characteristics, calculated mortality rates, and used Cox regression to identify risk factors. Results: A total of 2239 patients visited the ED for an OOD during the study period, with a median patient age of 37 years (IQR 29, 49). Males comprised 73% of patients, while 28% had no fixed address, and 21% received take-home naloxone at the index visit. In total, 137 patients (6.1%) died within 1 year of the index visit. Eighty-one deaths (3.6%) occurred within 6 months, including 24 deaths (1.1%) that occurred within 1 month. The highest mortality rate occurred in 2017, with 8.0% of patients entering the cohort that year dying within 1 year. Gender did not significantly impact mortality risk. A Cox regression analysis controlled for gender, housing status, and whether take-home naloxone was provided at the index visit indicated that advancing age (adjusted hazards ratio [AHR] 1.03; 95%CI: 1.01-1.04 for each year increase in age) and the index visit calendar year (AHR 1.30; 95%CI: 1.10-1.54 for each yearly increase in the study period) were significant factors for mortality within 1 year. Conclusion: The mortality rate following an opioid OD treated in the ED is high, with over 6% of patients in our study dying within 1 year. The rising mortality risk with increasing calendar year may reflect the growing harms of fentanyl-related OODs. Patients visiting the ED for an OOD should be considered high risk and offered preventative treatment and referrals prior to discharge.
How to think about, conduct, and evaluate research is fundamental to the study and understanding of criminology and criminal justice. Students take methods, statistics, theory, and topic-specific classes, but they struggle to integrate what they learn and to see how it fits within the broader field of criminology and criminal justice research. This book directly tackles this problem by helping students to develop a 'researcher sensibility', and demonstrates how the 'nuts and bolts' of criminal justice research - including research design, theory, data, and analysis - are and can be combined. Relying on numerous real-world examples and illustrations, this book reveals how anyone can 'think like a researcher'. It reveals, too, why that ability is critical for being a savvy producer or consumer of criminological and criminal justice research.