To send 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 sending content to .
To send 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 sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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 March 2017, the New Jersey Department of Health received reports of 3 patients who developed septic arthritis after receiving intra-articular injections for osteoarthritis knee pain at the same private outpatient facility in New Jersey. The risk of septic arthritis resulting from intra-articular injection is low. However, outbreaks of septic arthritis associated with unsafe injection practices in outpatient settings have been reported.
An infection prevention assessment of the implicated facility’s practices was conducted because of the ongoing risk to public health. The assessment included an environmental inspection of the facility, staff interviews, infection prevention practice observations, and a medical record and office document review. A call for cases was disseminated to healthcare providers in New Jersey to identify patients treated at the facility who developed septic arthritis after receiving intra-articular injections.
We identified 41 patients with septic arthritis associated with intra-articular injections. Cultures of synovial fluid or tissue from 15 of these 41 case patients (37%) recovered bacteria consistent with oral flora. The infection prevention assessment of facility practices identified multiple breaches of recommended infection prevention practices, including inadequate hand hygiene, unsafe injection practices, and poor cleaning and disinfection practices. No additional cases were identified after infection prevention recommendations were implemented by the facility.
Aseptic technique is imperative when handling, preparing, and administering injectable medications to prevent microbial contamination.
This investigation highlights the importance of adhering to infection prevention recommendations. All healthcare personnel who prepare, handle, and administer injectable medications should be trained in infection prevention and safe injection practices.
Although research has documented factors influencing whether military personnel seek treatment for mental health problems, less research has focused on determinants of treatment-seeking for physical health problems.
To explicitly compare the barriers and facilitators of treatment-seeking for mental and physical health problems.
US soldiers (n = 2048) completed a survey with measures of barriers and facilitators of treatment-seeking for mental and physical health problems as well as measures of somatic symptoms and mental health.
The top barrier for both mental and physical health treatment-seeking was a preference for handling problems oneself. The top facilitators for both symptom types were related to treatment improving quality of life. Differential endorsement of barriers occurred for treatment of mental versus physical health symptoms. In contrast, facilitators were endorsed more for physical than for mental health treatment. While there were few gender differences, officers reported more barriers and facilitators than did enlisted personnel. Screening positive for mental or physical health problems was associated with greater endorsement of both barriers and facilitators for physical and mental health treatment, respectively.
The leading barriers and facilitators for seeking treatment for mental health and physical problems are relatively similar, suggesting that health education should consider decision-making in seeking both mental and physical healthcare. Interventions should be tailored to reduce barriers for officers and improve facilitators for junior enlisted personnel, and address barriers and facilitators for service members screening positive for a mental or physical health problem.
Declaration of interest
T.W.B. reports personal fees from TechWerks Corporation during the conduct of the study.
Organizations are undergoing unprecedented transformation in the area of talent management (TM). Companies are rapidly adopting new tools and approaches in a variety of what has traditionally been core areas of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology such as performance management, employee attitudes, recruiting, testing and assessment, and career development. Increasingly, however, these new approaches have little to no research backing behind them, and they do not tend to be the focus of I-O psychology theory and research. We call this trend anti-industrial and organizational psychology (AIO), as we believe these forces to do not advance the field for long-term strategic impact. We present a framework that describes how AIO practices are adopted by organizations, and how I-O psychologists often gravitate away from these practices rather than actively help to separate the wheat from the chaff. We found support for our hypothesis through a brief analysis of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, the peer-reviewed journal of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). In this analysis, we found that only 10% of the focal articles from 2008 to 2016 represented topics that we call frontier—emerging areas in organizations but where there is no research support for them. We propose a set of recommendations for the field of I-O psychology and call for a more strategic approach to identifying and vetting new TM trends in order to increase the relevancy and impact of I-O psychology for our key stakeholders.
I briefly recall intersections of my research interests with those of John Bell. I then argue that the noise needed in theories of objective state vector reduction most likely comes from a fluctuating complex part in the classical spacetime metric; that is, state vector reduction is driven by complex-number-valued “space–time foam.”
My research interests have intersected those of John Bell three times. The first was when I found the forward lepton theorem for high-energy neutrino reactions, showing that for forward lepton kinematics, a conserved vector current (CVC) and a partially conserved axial vector current (PCAC) imply that the neutrino cross section can be related to a pion scattering cross section . This led to an exchange of letters and discussions with Bell during 1964–5, which are described in the Commentaries for my selected papers . The second was in the course of my work on the axial-vector anomaly , when I had further correspondence with John Bell, as described both in the Commentaries  and in the volume of essays on Yang–Mills theories assembled by 't Hooft . The third time was a few years after Bell's death in 1990, when I became interested in the foundations of quantum theory and the quantum measurement problem, in the course of writing my book on quaternionic quantum mechanics . Foundational issues in standard, complex quantum theory had preoccupied Bell for much of his career and led to his best known work. However, my correspondence with Bell in the 1960s never touched on quantum foundations, and I only read his seminal writings on the subject much later on. In this article I focus on this third area of shared interests.
Objective Reduction Models
There is now a well-defined phenomenology of state vector reduction, pioneered by the work of Ghirardi, Rimini, andWeber (GRW) and of Philip Pearle, and worked on by many others. John Bell was interested in this program from the outset.
We used the Pediatric Health Information System database to assess the use of antibiotics reserved for the treatment of resistant Gram-negative infections in children from 2004 to 2014. Overall, use of these agents increased in children from 2004 to 2007 and subsequently decreased.
Studies with members of the armed forces have found a gap between reports
of mental health symptoms and treatment-seeking.
To assess the impact of attitudes on treatment-seeking behaviours in
soldiers returning from a combat deployment.
A sample of 529 US soldiers were surveyed 4 months (time 1) and 12 months
(time 2) post-deployment. Mental health symptoms and treatment-seeking
attitudes were assessed at time 1; reported mental healthcare visits were
assessed at time 2.
Factor analysis of the total time 1 sample revealed four attitude
factors: professional concerns, practical barriers, preference for
self-management and positive attitudes about treatment. For the subset of
160 soldiers reporting a mental health problem at time 1, and controlling
for mental health symptom severity, self-management inversely predicted
treatment-seeking; positive attitudes were positively related.
Results demonstrate the importance of broadening the conceptualisation of
barriers and facilitators of mental healthcare beyond stigma. Techniques
and delivery models emphasising self-care may help increase soldiers'
interest in using mental health services.
The act of bearing witness is ineluctably dependent on real places, real events, and the utterances of real people. As such it stands in tension with Aristotelian poetics, which suggests that poets should leave the stuff of actuality to the historiographers: “It is not the poet's function to relate actual events, but the kinds of things that might occur and are possible in terms of probability or necessity.” Whereas the historian relates actual events and focuses on “the particular,” poetry is “more philosophical” and “elevated” since it “relates more of the universal.” In the German context, this philosophically oriented approach to literature was given aesthetic underpinning in the Age of Idealism, which evolved the antirhetorical ideal of the “free,” autonomous literary work of art that is liberated from the lowly constraints of historical fact and moral argument. More than any other literary tradition, however, German literature has come under pressure from historical reality. The crimes perpetrated against the Jews under National Socialism have posed an ongoing challenge, demanding conceptualization, articulation, and engagement. German literature was automatically implicated because it depends on the language used to instigate, perpetrate, and conceal those crimes, and because German was the natural language of most of those who—in various roles—witnessed the crimes as participants.
Two writers, born within 350 miles of each other, and yet worlds apart. Two writers, who would come to live, as exiles, within 100 miles of each other, work in the same academic field, share at least one important friend (Michael Hamburger) as well as an obsession with the Holocaust and its representation in literature and scholarship, and yet who never met or corresponded with one another. Two writers, the younger of whom not only read the other's works extensively but also placed him as a figure in his own text while openly using maps and figures from the elder writer's works, though the younger never wrote on or discussed the importance of the other writer in any article or interview. Finally, two writers, the older one having lived in almost complete obscurity despite publishing twenty-six books in his lifetime and several posthumous volumes since, while the younger rocketed to literary fame in middle age only to have his life end early in a terrible car crash—the elder writer having died peacefully in London years before at age seventy-eight despite having suffered the cataclysms of Theresienstadt, Auschwitz, Niederorschel, and Langenstein.
At first, one is alarmed to hear H. G. Adler and W. G. Sebald's names uttered in the same breath. Why these two in particular, and not two or three others? However, if one ponders this a few moments longer—and coincidentally happened to know both of them as I did—suddenly a network of connections arises, the entanglement of which only allows for the following conclusion: yes, these two solitary men, who likely never met one another personally, belong together.
When Winfried Georg Sebald was born in Wertach im Allgäu in 1944 at the end of the hopeless war, the Nazis deported Hans Günther Adler to Auschwitz, the second stage of his governmentally decreed humiliation, through a land whose language he loved and in which he wrote his works. The horror of Theresienstadt already lay behind him. It always remained a mystery to me how H. G. Adler, the survivor, managed to raise the strength and will to record the system of degradation which he had to experience on his own body. I imagine how he would sit in front of his typewriter in London and write—page by page, as uninvolved as possible and at the same time involved like no other—the record and the analytical penetration of the camp in which he was supposed to perish. Why did he put himself through this—to return to that prison, guided by the “muse of remembrance” which does not want to differentiate between good and evil? Why would the other survivors, those who had built this camp and who obviously had never anticipated ever being held accountable or punished, why would they not write of their crimes themselves? Why aren’t there thousands of precise descriptions of the brutality of all those executioners who, for the most part, even had time as pensioners in West Germany to come to terms with their past?
In the “Guardian Profile” which appeared in September 2001 in anticipation of the UK launch of Anthea Bell's translation of W. G. Sebald's Austerlitz (2001), interviewer Maya Jaggi describes how Sebald “loathes the term ‘Holocaust literature.’” While the assertion no doubt owes something to Adorno's famous dictum, Sebald is quoted as stating, “It's a dreadful idea that you can have a sub-genre and make a speciality out of it; it's grotesque.” Attempts at “recreations” are described as “an obscenity”—according to Jaggi, Sebald commends Lanzmann's Shoah but condemns Schindler's List—and he asserts: “I don't think you can focus on the horror of the Holocaust. It's like the head of the Medusa: you carry it with you in a sack, but if you looked at it you'd be petrified.” Turning to his own practice (referring to Die Ausgewanderten (1992; The Emigrants, 1996), but also by implication to the recently published Austerlitz), Sebald claims that “I was trying to write the lives of some people who'd survived—the ‘lucky ones.’ If they were so fraught, you can extrapolate. But I didn't see it; I only know things indirectly.”
In 1988, W. G. Sebald took part in a symposium held in commemoration of the tenth anniversary of Austrian author and Holocaust survivor Jean Améry's suicide. Sebald himself presented a paper with the title “Jean Améry und Primo Levi,” which was published in a volume of the conference's proceedings in 1990. Though short, this article is significant in its ability to shed light both on Sebald's appreciation of first-generation testimonial literature and on his own approach to writing after and about the Holocaust. And though relatively rarely discussed in Sebald scholarship, the critical responses it has elicited may be said to be indicative of broader trends in the reception of Sebald's literary reflections on and of the Holocaust. In both respects, “Jean Améry und Primo Levi,” especially when read alongside other critical and fictional pieces by Sebald, can also further our understanding of his literary “relationship” with that other first-generation Holocaust author whom the article does not mention by name but whose presence may be felt in the background, here as in other instances of Sebald's writing: with H. G. Adler.
In its opening paragraphs, “Jean Améry und Primo Levi” covers ground with which we are familiar from Sebald's better-known criticism. Naturgeschichte” (Between History and Natural History, 1982), and anticipating the Luftkrieg und Literatur lectures (1997, On the Natural History of Destruction, 2003), the article begins with an indictment of the German postwar literary scene, criticizing it for its deficient aesthetic and moral standards, and diagnosing it with an “almost constitutional inability to tell, or want to get to the bottom of, the truth” (115).
The central concern of the present chapter is with the question of why H. G. Adler's literary works failed to find a wider reading public during his own lifetime. My main focus is on the corpus of letters between Adler and Heinrich Böll which are held, respectively, in the German Literary Archive in Marbach, and the Historical Archives of the City of Cologne. Some of this correspondence has only come to light recently, during the process of review and re-archiving of material which survived the physical collapse of the latter institution in 2009. Following the suggestion of Adler's biographer, I also draw on Adler's correspondence with potential publishers. This material constitutes an interesting case study which offers complementary insights into the West German “literary field” of the 1950s and the two authors' interactions with it. I begin by tracing Böll's early career and in so doing refute the claims made by W. G. Sebald with respect to the later Nobel laureate's novel, Der Engel schwieg. This serves me to point up the insights that a consideration of the publication history of creative work can offer in the wider narrative of literary-historical trends and text reception, and, as a point particularly germane to the present chapter, how a writer's correspondence can be utilized in this regard as an invaluable storehouse of empirical material.
It is an honor for me to offer a few opening words to this volume on H. G. Adler and W. G. Sebald. The symposium that served as a starting point for this volume, hosted by the Institute of Germanic and Romance Studies, was, as far as I am aware, the second Sebald symposium in London University, and the second on H. G. Adler—the first having been devoted exclusively to H. G. Adler's correspondence with Hermann Broch. That in itself deserves recognition. Moreover, the symposium and this volume are made special by virtue of the fact that they widen the focus from the obvious theme of Sebald's reception of H. G. Adler's work—a topic interesting enough—to their shared commitment to Witnessing, Memory, and Poetics. The circumstances they wrote about tested these concepts to the limit and the contributions gathered here promise to deepen our understanding not just of Adler and Sebald and the relationship between the two of them, but of the three concepts, so important to them both.
Adler and Sebald have much in common. They are both scholarpoets—Dichter—who practice scholarship, fiction, poetry, and photography; both write as German-speaking exiles in England; and both stand in the tradition of Austrian literature defined by the work of Adalbert Stifter. Stifter's style, Stifter's fascination with detail, and Stifter's ethics all play a part in their work.