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 firstname.lastname@example.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.
In this chapter, guided by an intersectional feminist theoretical approach, we examine gender and sexuality as ubiquitous ideas in personal identity, intimate relationships, family systems, and social institutions. We critique heteronormativity in relational and family science in order to examine the plethora of relationships formed in the context of gender, identity, and sexuality. We examine how social structures at the macro level and social constructions at the microlevel influence selected issues regarding relationship initiation, development, maintenance, and dissolution. We review selected trends in the literature concerning diverse romantic relationships and how they adhere to or critique heteronormative ideologies, thereby, examining ways in which relational partners are both queering and challenging taken for granted assumptions about doing gender and sexuality in relationships.
During March 27–July 14, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Healthcare Safety Network extended its surveillance to hospital capacities responding to COVID-19 pandemic. The data showed wide variations across hospitals in case burden, bed occupancies, ventilator usage, and healthcare personnel and supply status. These data were used to inform emergency responses.
We analyzed 2017 healthcare facility-onset (HO) vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) bacteremia data to identify hospital-level factors that were significant predictors of HO-VRE using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) multidrug-resistant organism and Clostridioides difficile reporting module. A risk-adjusted model that can be used to calculate the number of predicted HO-VRE bacteremia events in a facility was developed, thus enabling the calculation of VRE standardized infection ratios (SIRs).
Acute-care hospitals reporting at least 1 month of 2017 VRE bacteremia data were included in the analysis. Various hospital-level characteristics were assessed to develop a best-fit model and subsequently derive the 2018 national and state SIRs.
In 2017, 470 facilities in 35 states participated in VRE bacteremia surveillance. Inpatient VRE community-onset prevalence rate, average length of patient stay, outpatient VRE community-onset prevalence rate, and presence of an oncology unit were all significantly associated (all 95% likelihood ratio confidence limits excluded the nominal value of zero) with HO-VRE bacteremia. The 2018 national SIR was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.93–1.09) with 577 HO bacteremia events reported.
The creation of an SIR enables national-, state-, and facility-level monitoring of VRE bacteremia while controlling for individual hospital-level factors. Hospitals can compare their VRE burden to a national benchmark to help them determine the effectiveness of infection prevention efforts over time.
The rapid spread of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) throughout key regions of the United States in early 2020 placed a premium on timely, national surveillance of hospital patient censuses. To meet that need, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN), the nation’s largest hospital surveillance system, launched a module for collecting hospital coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) data. We present time-series estimates of the critical hospital capacity indicators from April 1 to July 14, 2020.
From March 27 to July 14, 2020, the NHSN collected daily data on hospital bed occupancy, number of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and the availability and/or use of mechanical ventilators. Time series were constructed using multiple imputation and survey weighting to allow near–real-time daily national and state estimates to be computed.
During the pandemic’s April peak in the United States, among an estimated 431,000 total inpatients, 84,000 (19%) had COVID-19. Although the number of inpatients with COVID-19 decreased from April to July, the proportion of occupied inpatient beds increased steadily. COVID-19 hospitalizations increased from mid-June in the South and Southwest regions after stay-at-home restrictions were eased. The proportion of inpatients with COVID-19 on ventilators decreased from April to July.
The NHSN hospital capacity estimates served as important, near–real-time indicators of the pandemic’s magnitude, spread, and impact, providing quantitative guidance for the public health response. Use of the estimates detected the rise of hospitalizations in specific geographic regions in June after they declined from a peak in April. Patient outcomes appeared to improve from early April to mid-July.
Background: The NHSN is the nation’s largest surveillance system for healthcare-associated infections. Since 2011, acute-care hospitals (ACHs) have been required to report intensive care unit (ICU) central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) to the NHSN pursuant to CMS requirements. In 2015, this requirement included general medical, surgical, and medical-surgical wards. Also in 2015, the NHSN implemented a repeat infection timeframe (RIT) that required repeat CLABSIs, in the same patient and admission, to be excluded if onset was within 14 days. This analysis is the first at the national level to describe repeat CLABSIs. Methods: Index CLABSIs reported in ACH ICUs and select wards during 2015–2108 were included, in addition to repeat CLABSIs occurring at any location during the same period. CLABSIs were stratified into 2 groups: single and repeat CLABSIs. The repeat CLABSI group included the index CLABSI and subsequent CLABSI(s) reported for the same patient. Up to 5 CLABSIs were included for a single patient. Pathogen analyses were limited to the first pathogen reported for each CLABSI, which is considered to be the most important cause of the event. Likelihood ratio χ2 tests were used to determine differences in proportions. Results: Of the 70,214 CLABSIs reported, 5,983 (8.5%) were repeat CLABSIs. Of 3,264 nonindex CLABSIs, 425 (13%) were identified in non-ICU or non-select ward locations. Staphylococcus aureus was the most common pathogen in both the single and repeat CLABSI groups (14.2% and 12%, respectively) (Fig. 1). Compared to all other pathogens, CLABSIs reported with Candida spp were less likely in a repeat CLABSI event than in a single CLABSI event (P < .0001). Insertion-related organisms were more likely to be associated with single CLABSIs than repeat CLABSIs (P < .0001) (Fig. 2). Alternatively, Enterococcus spp or Klebsiella pneumoniae and K. oxytoca were more likely to be associated with repeat CLABSIs than single CLABSIs (P < .0001). Conclusions: This analysis highlights differences in the aggregate pathogen distributions comparing single versus repeat CLABSIs. Assessing the pathogens associated with repeat CLABSIs may offer another way to assess the success of CLABSI prevention efforts (eg, clean insertion practices). Pathogens such as Enterococcus spp and Klebsiella spp demonstrate a greater association with repeat CLABSIs. Thus, instituting prevention efforts focused on these organisms may warrant greater attention and could impact the likelihood of repeat CLABSIs. Additional analysis of patient-specific pathogens identified in the repeat CLABSI group may yield further clarification.
To describe pathogen distribution and rates for central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) from different acute-care locations during 2011–2017 to inform prevention efforts.
CLABSI data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) were analyzed. Percentages and pooled mean incidence density rates were calculated for a variety of pathogens and stratified by acute-care location groups (adult intensive care units [ICUs], pediatric ICUs [PICUs], adult wards, pediatric wards, and oncology wards).
From 2011 to 2017, 136,264 CLABSIs were reported to the NHSN by adult and pediatric acute-care locations; adult ICUs and wards reported the most CLABSIs: 59,461 (44%) and 40,763 (30%), respectively. In 2017, the most common pathogens were Candida spp/yeast in adult ICUs (27%) and Enterobacteriaceae in adult wards, pediatric wards, oncology wards, and PICUs (23%–31%). Most pathogen-specific CLABSI rates decreased over time, excepting Candida spp/yeast in adult ICUs and Enterobacteriaceae in oncology wards, which increased, and Staphylococcus aureus rates in pediatric locations, which did not change.
The pathogens associated with CLABSIs differ across acute-care location groups. Learning how pathogen-targeted prevention efforts could augment current prevention strategies, such as strategies aimed at preventing Candida spp/yeast and Enterobacteriaceae CLABSIs, might further reduce national rates.
A propensity to attend to other people's emotions is a necessary condition for human empathy.
To test our hypothesis that psychopathic disorder begins as a failure to attend to the eyes of attachment figures, using a ‘love’ scenario in young children.
Children with oppositional defiant disorder, assessed for callous–unemotional traits, and a control group were observed in a love interaction with mothers. Eye contact and affection were measured for each dyad.
There was no group difference in affection and eye contact expressed by the mothers. Compared with controls, children with oppositional defiant disorder expressed lower levels of affection back towards their mothers; those with high levels of callous–unemotional traits showed significantly lower levels of affection than the children lacking these traits. As predicted, the former group showed low levels of eye contact toward their mothers. Low eye contact was not correlated with maternal coercive parenting or feelings toward the child, but was correlated with psychopathic fearlessness in their fathers.
Impairments in eye contact are characteristic of children with callous–unemotional traits, and these impairments are independent of maternal behaviour.