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.
Clinical ethics consultants navigate some of the most challenging cases in patient care, public health, and healthcare policy. The second volume richly details haunting cases pertaining to perinatal, pediatric, and end-of-life issues; neurodiversity; disability; and employment of high-tech devices. Authors explain distinctive features of consultations in rural and pandemic contexts and complicated transitions into and out of inpatient care. Cases are grouped together by theme and organized uniformly. Each chapter includes a case presentation, the authors' professional reflections, a description of haunting aspects, the case outcome, and questions for discussion. Organizational ethics factor into many of the cases. The authors honestly describe the affective aspects of their work, including lingering regrets, doubts, and moral distress. They pay special attention to justice, equity, and inclusivity. It is a fascinating and important read for clinicians and bioethicists engaged in clinical ethics consultations as well as ethics committee members and students.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provided strategies, such as extended use and reuse, to preserve N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFR). We aimed to assess the prevalence of N95 FFR contamination with SARS-CoV-2 among healthcare personnel (HCP) in the Emergency Department (ED).
Design:
Real-world, prospective, multicenter cohort study. N95 FFR contamination (primary outcome) was measured by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with contamination.
Setting:
Six academic medical centers.
Participants:
ED HCP who practiced N95 FFR reuse and extended use during the COVID-19 pandemic between April 2021 and July 2022.
Primary exposure:
Total number of COVID-19-positive patients treated.
Results:
Two-hundred forty-five N95 FFRs were tested. Forty-four N95 FFRs (18.0%, 95% CI 13.4, 23.3) were contaminated with SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The number of patients seen with COVID-19 was associated with N95 FFR contamination (adjusted odds ratio, 2.3 [95% CI 1.5, 3.6]). Wearing either surgical masks or face shields over FFRs was not associated with FFR contamination, and FFR contamination prevalence was high when using these adjuncts [face shields: 25% (16/64), surgical masks: 22% (23/107)].
Conclusions:
Exposure to patients with known COVID-19 was independently associated with N95 FFR contamination. Face shields and overlying surgical masks were not associated with N95 FFR contamination. N95 FFR reuse and extended use should be avoided due to the increased risk of contact exposure from contaminated FFRs.
Multicenter clinical trials are essential for evaluating interventions but often face significant challenges in study design, site coordination, participant recruitment, and regulatory compliance. To address these issues, the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences established the Trial Innovation Network (TIN). The TIN offers a scientific consultation process, providing access to clinical trial and disease experts who provide input and recommendations throughout the trial’s duration, at no cost to investigators. This approach aims to improve trial design, accelerate implementation, foster interdisciplinary teamwork, and spur innovations that enhance multicenter trial quality and efficiency. The TIN leverages resources of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program, complementing local capabilities at the investigator’s institution. The Initial Consultation process focuses on the study’s scientific premise, design, site development, recruitment and retention strategies, funding feasibility, and other support areas. As of 6/1/2024, the TIN has provided 431 Initial Consultations to increase efficiency and accelerate trial implementation by delivering customized support and tailored recommendations. Across a range of clinical trials, the TIN has developed standardized, streamlined, and adaptable processes. We describe these processes, provide operational metrics, and include a set of lessons learned for consideration by other trial support and innovation networks.
Accumulating evidence shows that an increasing number of children and young people (CYP) are reporting mental health problems.
Aims
To investigate emotional disorders (anxiety or depression) among CYP in England between 2004 and 2017, and to identify which disorders and demographic groups have experienced the greatest increase.
Method
Repeated cross-sectional, face-to-face study using data from the Mental Health of Children and Young People surveys conducted in 2004 and 2017, allowing use of nationally representative probability samples of CYP aged 5–16 years in England. A total of 13 561 CYP were included across both survey waves (6898 in 2004 and 6663 in 2017). We assessed the prevalence of any emotional, anxiety and depressive disorder assessed using the Development and Well-Being Assessment and classified according to ICD-10 criteria.
Results
The prevalence of emotional disorders increased from 3.9% in 2004 to 6.0% in 2017, a relative increase of 63% (relative ratio 1.63, 95% CI 1.38, 1.91). This was largely driven by anxiety disorders, which increased from 3.5 to 5.4% (relative ratio 1.63, 95% CI 1.37, 1.93). The largest relative changes were for panic disorder, separation anxiety, social phobia and post-traumatic stress disorder. Changes were similar for different genders and socioeconomic groups, but differed by ethnicity: the most pronounced increase was among White CYP (relative ratio 1.88, 95% CI 1.59, 2.24), compared with no clear change for Black and minority ethnic CYP (relative ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.52, 1.39). Comorbid psychiatric conditions were present in over a third of CYP with emotional disorders, with the most common being conduct disorder.
Conclusions
Between 2004 and 2017, the increase in emotional disorders among CYP in England was largely driven by anxiety disorders. Socioeconomic inequalities did not narrow. Disaggregating by ethnicity, change was evident only in White CYP, suggesting differential trends in either risk exposure, resilience or reporting by ethnicity.
Recent changes to US research funding are having far-reaching consequences that imperil the integrity of science and the provision of care to vulnerable populations. Resisting these changes, the BJPsych Portfolio reaffirms its commitment to publishing mental science and advancing psychiatric knowledge that improves the mental health of one and all.
This chapter of Complex Ethics Consultations: Cases that Haunt Us delineates how to use the book to educate ethics committees, ethics consultants, and bioethics students at all stages of study. Detailed educational activities are outlined for ready use by teachers, students, clinicians, and ethicists. The chapter identifies cases in the book with similar themes, proving invaluable case-based educational material.
The cases in this volume exemplify a rich cross-section of consultation experiences from which we can learn. The authors tell stories and share personal responses connected to deeply affective clinical ethics cases in which they consulted. None of these authors has selected an easy case. Ambiguity, second-guessing, and regret permeate their stories and reflections. They show great courage in laying bare such things as potential missteps, institutional impotence, and interpersonal struggles. Through their openness, we have amassed a rare collection of stories from which to learn about real-life challenges encountered by clinical ethics consultants in the incredibly complex world of contemporary health care.