Post-mortem examination of the nervous system is a complex task that culminates in “brain cutting”. It relies on expertise in neuroanatomy, clinical neurosciences, neuroimaging and experience in order to recognise the most subtle abnormalities. Like any specialist examination in medicine, it warrants formal training, a standardised approach and optimal conditions. Revelations of aberrant tissue retention practices of a select few pathologists (e.g. Goudge, Liverpool and Alder Hey inquiries) and a motivated sociopolitical climate led some Canadian jurisdictions to impose broad restrictions on tissue retention. This raised concerns that nervous system examinations for diagnosis, education and research were at risk by limiting examinations to the fresh or incompletely fixed state. Professional experience indicates that cutting an unfixed or partly fixed brain is inferior.

To add objectivity and further insight we sought the expert opinion of a group of qualified specialists. Canadian neuropathologists were surveyed for their opinion on the relative merits of examining brains in the fresh or fully fixed state.

A total of 14 out of 46 Canadian neuropathologists responded (30%). In the pervasive opinion of respondents, cutting and sampling a brain prior to full fixation leads to a loss of diagnostic accuracy, biosafety and academic deliverables.

Brain cutting in the fresh state is significantly impaired along multiple dimensions of relevance to a pathologist’s professional roles and obligations.

Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) are a significant clinical and public health concern. Understanding the distribution of CRE colonization and developing a coordinated approach are key components of control efforts. The prevalence of CRE in the District of Columbia is unknown. We sought to determine the CRE colonization prevalence within healthcare facilities (HCFs) in the District of Columbia using a collaborative, regional approach.

Point-prevalence study.

This study included 16 HCFs in the District of Columbia: all 8 acute-care hospitals (ACHs), 5 of 19 skilled nursing facilities, 2 (both) long-term acute-care facilities, and 1 (the sole) inpatient rehabilitation facility.

Inpatients on all units excluding psychiatry and obstetrics-gynecology.

CRE identification was performed on perianal swab samples using real-time polymerase chain reaction, culture, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST). Prevalence was calculated by facility and unit type as the number of patients with a positive result divided by the total number tested. Prevalence ratios were compared using the Poisson distribution.

Of 1,022 completed tests, 53 samples tested positive for CRE, yielding a prevalence of 5.2% (95% CI, 3.9%–6.8%). Of 726 tests from ACHs, 36 (5.0%; 95% CI, 3.5%–6.9%) were positive. Of 244 tests from long-term-care facilities, 17 (7.0%; 95% CI, 4.1%–11.2%) were positive. The relative prevalence ratios by facility type were 0.9 (95% CI, 0.5–1.5) and 1.5 (95% CI, 0.9–2.6), respectively. No CRE were identified from the inpatient rehabilitation facility.

A baseline CRE prevalence was established, revealing endemicity across healthcare settings in the District of Columbia. Our study establishes a framework for interfacility collaboration to reduce CRE transmission and infection.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:921–929

To develop policy and public health recommendations for implementation at all levels by individuals and organisations working in, or related to, the field of breast-feeding promotion in developed country settings, where breast-feeding rates remain low.

Two research phases, comprising (i) an assessment of the formal evidence base in developed country settings and (ii) a consultation with UK-based practitioners, service managers and commissioners, and representatives of service users. The evidence base included three systematic reviews and an Evidence Briefing. One hundred and ten studies evaluating an intervention in developed country settings were assessed for quality and awarded an overall quality rating. Studies with a poor quality rating were excluded. The resulting seventy studies examined twenty-five types of intervention for breast-feeding promotion. These formed the basis of the second consultation phase to develop the evidence-based interventions into recommendations for practice, which comprised (i) pilot consultation, (ii) electronic consultation, (iii) fieldwork meetings and (iv) workshops. Draft findings were synthesised for two rounds of stakeholder review conducted by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.

Twenty-five recommendations emerged within three complementary and necessary categories, i.e. public health policy, mainstream clinical practice and local interventions.

The need for national policy directives was clearly identified as a priority to address many of the barriers experienced by practitioners when trying to work across sectors, organisations and professional groups. Routine implementation of the WHO/UNICEF Baby Friendly Initiative across hospital and community services was recommended as core to breast-feeding promotion in the UK. A local mix of complementary interventions is also required.

To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of different methods of cleaning and sterilisation of infant feeding equipment used in the home.

Systematic review of studies from developed countries on the effectiveness of methods of cleaning and sterilisation of infant feeding equipment used in the home. A brief telephone survey of UK-based manufacturers of infant feeding equipment and formula to ascertain the evidence base used for their recommendations, and a comparison of current relevant guidelines in developed countries, informed the work.

National guidelines from six countries demonstrated variation and lack of evidence to support current guidance. Manufacturers did not report evidence of effectiveness to support their recommendations. Nine studies were identified; eight conducted between 1962 and 1985 and one in 1997. All had methodological weaknesses. Hand-washing was identified as fundamentally important. Health professionals were reported as not providing appropriate education on the importance and methods of cleaning and sterilisation. Mothers of subsequent babies and women from lower socio-economic groups were less likely to follow recommended procedures.

There is a lack of good-quality evidence on effective ways of cleaning and sterilising infant feeding equipment in the home. The evidence base does not answer the question about which of the methods in common use is most effective or most likely to be used by parents. Hand-washing before handling feeding equipment remains important. Further research on the range of methods used in the home environment, including assessment of the views of parents and carers, is required.