Neoclassical economics (NCE) theory and neoliberal economics practice together form one of the principal driving forces of environmental destruction and social injustice. We critically examine ten key hypotheses that form the foundations of NCE, and four other claims. Each fails to satisfy one or more of the basic requirements of scientific practice. Hence, NCE is fundamentally flawed, is irrational in the common meaning of the word, and should not be used as a guide for government policies. Because NCE is socially constructed, it can be replaced with an interdisciplinary conceptual framework that is compatible with ecological sustainability and social justice.

Neoclassical economics (NCE) is widely regarded as providing theoretical justification for neoliberal notions such as ‘governments should minimize regulation and spending, and hence leave major socioeconomic and environmental decisions to the market’. A large body of literature finds that NCE is largely responsible for environmental destruction and social inequality. As NCE is claimed to be a science and has appropriated terminology (without the content) from physics, we examine critically its basic hypotheses and four other claims from a viewpoint of natural scientists and an ecological economist, each a sustainability researcher. This paper defines NCE in two ways: as a theoretical structure for economics based on (1) the hypotheses of methodological individualism, methodological instrumentalism and methodological equilibration, and (2) the three hypotheses named above together with seven other common hypotheses of NCE. We find that each hypothesis and claim fails to satisfy one or more basic requirements of scientific practice such as empirical confirmation, underlying credible or empirical assumptions, consistency with Earth system science, and internal consistency. Sensitivity analysis is rare and ability to predict is lacking. Therefore, we recommend that neoclassical microeconomics be reformed and neoclassical macroeconomics be abandoned and replaced with a transdisciplinary field such as social ecological economics.

Conventional economics, a driver of environmental damage and social inequality, fails examination by sustainability scientists.

Understanding characteristics of healthcare personnel (HCP) with SARS-CoV-2 infection supports the development and prioritization of interventions to protect this important workforce. We report detailed characteristics of HCP who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from April 20, 2020 through December 31, 2021.

CDC collaborated with Emerging Infections Program sites in 10 states to interview HCP with SARS-CoV-2 infection (case-HCP) about their demographics, underlying medical conditions, healthcare roles, exposures, personal protective equipment (PPE) use, and COVID-19 vaccination status. We grouped case-HCP by healthcare role. To describe residential social vulnerability, we merged geocoded HCP residential addresses with CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) values at the census tract level. We defined highest and lowest SVI quartiles as high and low social vulnerability, respectively.

Our analysis included 7,531 case-HCP. Most case-HCP with roles as certified nursing assistant (CNA) (444, 61.3%), medical assistant (252, 65.3%), or home healthcare worker (HHW) (225, 59.5%) reported their race and ethnicity as either non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic. More than one third of HHWs (166, 45.2%), CNAs (283, 41.7%), and medical assistants (138, 37.9%) reported a residential address in the high social vulnerability category. The proportion of case-HCP who reported using recommended PPE at all times when caring for patients with COVID-19 was lowest among HHWs compared with other roles.

To mitigate SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in healthcare settings, infection prevention, and control interventions should be specific to HCP roles and educational backgrounds. Additional interventions are needed to address high social vulnerability among HHWs, CNAs, and medical assistants.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a catalyst for a shift towards virtual forms of working, and specific support for the provision of virtual therapy (BPS, 2020). Remotely delivered therapy has known potential benefits, such as improving access to people living in underserved areas and for those who struggle to attend face-to-face appointments due to psychosocial, physical or geographical constraints. Those with neurological conditions frequently fall in these groups.

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is an evidence-based psychological intervention which aims to improve the physical and mental health of people living with neurological conditions. However, there are several considerations to translating this into a virtual therapy for this clinical group that have not yet been thoroughly empirically evaluated. Such considerations include: fatigue, cognitive difficulties in the context of virtual communication, adaptations within the therapeutic alliance, and translation of dynamic and interactive therapeutic exercises within a virtual medium.

This study aimed to describe the experiences of Clinical Psychologists delivering ACT remotely in the context of two randomised controlled feasibility and acceptability clinical trials for young people (aged 11 to 24) who have experienced a brain tumour or Tuberous Sclerosis Complex. Exploring therapist perceptions and experiences provides valuable insights into potential barriers and facilitators to engagement with remote ACT delivery.

Clinical Psychologists who were trained to deliver ACT via videoconferencing were invited to take part in virtual interviews. The semi-structured interview guide aimed to draw on their experience of ACT training, supervision, remote delivery, and perceived impact of ACT. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

Five Clinical Psychologists were interviewed. Interview data were coded into broad themes around the experience of delivering ACT, engaging with remote systems, the wider perceived impact of ACT and the adaptability of ACT. ACT training was reported to be an effective, positive experience and the opportunity for regular peer and group supervision worked to solidify the training and support fidelity to the ACT processes. It was largely acknowledged that while remote delivery of the intervention did create some initial challenges to the therapeutic process, this approach created opportunity for the young people to access psychological support that they might not have been able to engage with due to logistical considerations. Clinical Psychologists also shared that training in and experience of delivering ACT had a positive and meaningful impact on their clinical practice and personal conduct. They also reported that ACT was adaptable to the needs of the young people in the clinical trials and felt appropriate to deliver in this context.

This in-depth, qualitative study demonstrated the clinical promise of remotely delivered ACT. Clinical Psychologists viewed remotely delivered ACT as an appropriate, acceptable and feasible intervention for young people with experience of brain tumour and Tuberous Sclerosis Complex within the context of research, that would be generalisable to everyday clinical practice.

Raising a concern is an integral duty for a doctor. The General Medical Council guidelines on Good Medical Practice state that a culture should be promoted that allows “all staff to raise concerns openly and safely”. Appointment of Postgraduate Doctors in Training to Representative (Rep) positions can be an effective way to allow trainee voices to be heard. Here we present the results of a Development Half-Day created to empower Reps with the knowledge and confidence to represent peers effectively within a large mental health Trust. The training session was identified as a ”change idea” in a wider Quality Improvement Project (QIP) seeking to improve trainee confidence in raising concerns.

16 Postgraduate Doctors in Training Reps were invited to attend a Development Half-Day in November 2022. The day included talks on their roles and responsibilities, respectful challenge and maintaining well-being.

Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered using anonymous questionnaires completed before and after the session. The questionnaire contained 4 questions asking them to rate their knowledge of their role as a rep and confidence in raising trainee concerns. This was quantified using a 1-10 scale for each question with 1 being lowest confidence/knowledge and 10 being highest. Mean scores and standard deviations were calculated. A paired one-tailed t-test was used to assess the statistical significance of the difference in pre- and post-session scores.

9 Reps attended the Development Half-Day and completed the pre- and post-session questionnaires.

There was a statistically significant improvement between pre- and post-session scores for all questions (all p values <0.05). Importantly there was a significant increase in the confidence felt by reps in knowing where and who to raise trainee concerns to (p < 0.05).

Qualitative feedback indicated that attendees found the session useful and they appreciated that it was in-person. The only suggestion for improvement was for the session to have been held earlier, closer to when reps were initially appointed; this will be a change that will be implemented in the next “Plan, Do, Study, Act” cycle of the QIP.

Implementation of a Development Half-Day for Trainee Reps was shown to have a significantly positive impact on their confidence in their roles and their ability to respectively challenge seniors. The Reps additionally reported being better equipped at knowing where and who to raise concerns to. This will hopefully aid in their ability to signpost and empower other trainees to do the same.

Raising concerns is a duty for all doctors. However, a scoping exercise within a large mental health Trust demonstrated that trainees experience difficulties in raising both patient safety and training concerns. As part of a trainee-led quality improvement (QI) project within this Trust, our aim was to develop a pulse survey to capture the current likelihood of trainees raising concerns and factors influencing this.

An online survey was developed using ‘plan do study act’ (PDSA) methodology. The initial draft was informed by data from the Autumn 2021 scoping exercise. The survey was refined using a collaborative trainee-led approach. It was tested by trainees involved in the QI project followed by two other trainees and was revised accordingly.

Trainees across all training grades were invited to complete the survey through various communication channels. The pulse survey will be repeated monthly with a two-week response window.

Ten trainees out of 103 responded to the first pulse survey open from 18th to 31st January 2023 (response rate 9.7%). Seven respondents were core trainees and three were higher trainees.

Respondents were more likely to raise patient safety concerns than training concerns (average score of 3.8 out of 5, where 5 equals ‘very likely’, versus 3.4 out of 5 respectively). Of the three respondents who had experienced a patient safety concern in the past 2 weeks, only two had used any existing process to raise it. These data were replicated for training concerns.

No respondents were confident that effective action would be taken if they raised a training concern, while less than half of respondents were confident that effective action would be taken if it were a patient safety concern.

The reasons for the low response rate are likely varied. However, there may be some similar underlying reasons for low engagement in surveys and low engagement in raising concerns. Given this, a more negative picture of trainees’ likelihood of raising concerns may have been portrayed if more trainees engaged in the survey.

Engaging trainees to provide insight into their likelihood of raising concerns is challenging. Despite the low response rate, this initial pulse survey demonstrated that trainees continue to experience barriers to raising concerns. PDSA methodology will continue to be used to optimise the monthly pulse survey response rate. The key QI outcome measures will also be integrated into pre and post intervention surveys as a pragmatic approach to evaluate specific change ideas.

At various stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, face coverings have been recommended and encouraged as one of the interventions to reduce transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, in the earlier stages of the pandemic, decisions on face coverings relied primarily on evidence based on other viral respiratory infections. More direct evidence on the use of face coverings with COVID-19 developed in tandem with the pandemic.

Health Technology Wales undertook an ultra-rapid review to inform national guidelines, the work assessed the evidence on the effectiveness of face coverings to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. We also reviewed evidence on the efficacy of different types of face coverings.

We conducted a systematic literature search for evidence to address (i) the effectiveness of face coverings to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in the community, and (ii) the efficacy of different types of face coverings designed for use in community settings. We identified a rapid review in 2021 by Public Health England that closely aligned with our review questions. This provided the main source for identifying relevant studies, supplemented by a search for publications following their search date.

We identified two evidence reviews (including the Public Health England review) that examined the effectiveness of face coverings on reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2; reporting on 31 and 39 studies, respectively. Two further primary studies were published after the two evidence review searches were included. Overall, the evidence suggested that face coverings may provide benefits in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, although the higher-quality studies suggested that these benefits may be modest. Medical masks appeared to have higher efficacy than fabric masks, although the evidence was mixed.

At the time of this review, evidence on the effectiveness of face coverings remains limited and conclusions rely on low-quality sources of evidence with high risk of bias, although higher-quality evidence points to some benefit. Face coverings may play a role in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2, particularly as part of a bundle of other preventative measures.

Discontinuation of antipsychotic medication may be linked to high risk of relapse, hospitalization and mortality. This study investigated the use and discontinuation of antipsychotics in individuals with first-episode schizophrenia in relation to cohabitation, living with children, employment, hospital admission and death.

Danish registers were used to establish a nationwide cohort of individuals ⩾18 years with schizophrenia included at the time of diagnosis in1995–2013. Exposure was antipsychotic medication calculated using defined daily dose and redeemed prescriptions year 2–5. Outcomes year 5–6 were analysed using binary logistic, negative binomial and Cox proportional hazard regression.

Among 21 351, 9.3% took antipsychotics continuously year 2–5, 38.6% took no antipsychotics, 3.4% sustained discontinuation and 48.7% discontinued and resumed treatment. At follow-up year 6, living with children or employment was significantly higher in individuals with sustained discontinuation (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.53–2.56 and OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.91–3.54), non-sustained discontinuation (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05–1.48 and 2.04, 95% CI 1.64–2.53) and no antipsychotics (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.69–2.38 and 5.64, 95% CI 4.56–6.97) compared to continuous users. Individuals with non-sustained discontinuation had more psychiatric hospital admissions (IRR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10–1.47) and longer admissions (IRR 1.68, 95% CI 1.30–2.16) year 5–6 compared to continuous users. Mortality during year 5–6 did not differ between groups.

Most individuals with first-episode schizophrenia discontinued or took no antipsychotics the first years after diagnosis and had better functional outcomes. Non-sustained discontinuers had more, and longer admissions compared to continuous users. However, associations found could be either cause or effect.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has presented unique challenges to pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) departments. The purpose of this study was to identify these challenges and ascertain how centers overcame barriers in creating solutions to continue to provide high-quality care and keep their workforce safe during the early pandemic.

This is a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews with physicians in leadership positions who have disaster or emergency management experience. Participants were identified through purposive sampling. Interviews were recorded and transcribed electronically. Themes and codes were extracted from the transcripts by 2 independent coders. Constant comparison analysis was performed until thematic saturation was achieved. Member-checking was completed to ensure trustworthiness.

Fourteen PEM-trained physicians participated in this study. Communication, leadership and planning, clinical practice, and personal adaptations were the principal themes identified. Recommendations elicited include improving communication strategies; increasing emergency department (ED) representation within hospital-wide incident command; preparing for a surge and accepting adult patients; personal protective equipment supply and usage; developing testing strategies; and adaptations individuals made to their practice to keep themselves and their families safe.

By sharing COVID-19 experiences and offering solutions to commonly encountered problems, pediatric EDs may be better prepared for future pandemics.