We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
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 coreplatform@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.
The Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program conducted point-prevalence surveys in acute-care hospitals in 2002, 2009, and 2017 to identify trends in antimicrobial use.
Methods:
Eligible inpatients were identified from a 24-hour period in February of each survey year. Patients were eligible (1) if they were admitted for ≥48 hours or (2) if they had been admitted to the hospital within a month. Chart reviews were conducted. We calculated the prevalence of antimicrobial use as follows: patients receiving ≥1 antimicrobial during survey period per number of patients surveyed × 100%.
Results:
In each survey, 28−47 hospitals participated. In 2002, 2,460 (36.5%; 95% CI, 35.3%−37.6%) of 6,747 surveyed patients received ≥1 antimicrobial. In 2009, 3,566 (40.1%, 95% CI, 39.0%−41.1%) of 8,902 patients received ≥1 antimicrobial. In 2017, 3,936 (39.6%, 95% CI, 38.7%−40.6%) of 9,929 patients received ≥1 antimicrobial. Among patients who received ≥1 antimicrobial, penicillin use increased 36.8% between 2002 and 2017, and third-generation cephalosporin use increased from 13.9% to 18.1% (P < .0001). Between 2002 and 2017, fluoroquinolone use decreased from 25.7% to 16.3% (P < .0001) and clindamycin use decreased from 25.7% to 16.3% (P < .0001) among patients who received ≥1 antimicrobial. Aminoglycoside use decreased from 8.8% to 2.4% (P < .0001) and metronidazole use decreased from 18.1% to 9.4% (P < .0001). Carbapenem use increased from 3.9% in 2002 to 6.1% in 2009 (P < .0001) and increased by 4.8% between 2009 and 2017 (P = .60).
Conclusions:
The prevalence of antimicrobial use increased between 2002 and 2009 and then stabilized between 2009 and 2017. These data provide important information for antimicrobial stewardship programs.
Herbicides with soil-residual activity have the potential for carryover into subsequent crops, resulting in injury to sensitive crops and limiting productivity if severe. The increased use of soil-residual herbicides in the United States for management of troublesome weeds in corn- and soybean-cropping systems has potential to result in more cases of carryover. Soil management practices have different effects on the soil environment, potentially influencing herbicide degradation and likelihood of carryover. Field experiments were conducted at three sites in 2019 and 2020 to determine the effects of corn (clopyralid and mesotrione) and soybean (fomesafen and imazethapyr) herbicides applied in the fall at reduced rates (25% and 50% of labeled rates) and three soil management practices (tillage, no-tillage, and a fall-established cereal rye cover crop) on subsequent growth and productivity of the cereal rye cover crop and the soybean and corn crops, respectively. Most response variables (cereal rye biomass and crop canopy cover at cover crop termination in the spring, early-season crop stand and herbicide injury ratings, and crop yield) were not affected by herbicide carryover. Corn yield was lower when soil was managed with a cereal rye cover crop compared with tillage at all three sites, while yield was lower for no-till compared with tillage at two sites. Soybean yield was lower when managed with a cereal rye cover crop compared with tillage and no-till at one site. Findings from this research indicate a low carryover risk for these herbicides across site-years when label rotational restrictions are followed and environmental conditions favorable for herbicide degradation exist, regardless of soil management practice on silt loam or silty clay loam soil types in the U.S. Midwest region.
Severe mental illness (SMI) is associated with increased stroke risk, but little is known about how SMI relates to stroke prognosis and receipt of acute care.
Aims
To determine the association between SMI and stroke outcomes and receipt of process-of-care quality indicators (such as timely admission to stroke unit).
Method
We conducted a cohort study using routinely collected linked data-sets, including adults with a first hospital admission for stroke in Scotland during 1991–2014, with process-of-care quality indicator data available from 2010. We identified pre-existing schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depression from hospital records. We used logistic regression to evaluate 30-day, 1-year and 5-year mortality and receipt of process-of-care quality indicators by pre-existing SMI, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors. We used Cox regression to evaluate further stroke and vascular events (stroke and myocardial infarction).
Results
Among 228 699 patients who had had a stroke, 1186 (0.5%), 859 (0.4%), 7308 (3.2%) had schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depression, respectively. Overall, median follow-up was 2.6 years. Compared with adults without a record of mental illness, 30-day mortality was higher for schizophrenia (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.33, 95% CI 1.16–1.52), bipolar disorder (aOR = 1.37, 95% CI 1.18–1.60) and major depression (aOR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.05–1.18). Each disorder was also associated with marked increased risk of 1-year and 5-year mortality and further stroke and vascular events. There were no clear differences in receipt of process-of-care quality indicators.
Conclusions
Pre-existing SMI was associated with higher risks of mortality and further vascular events. Urgent action is needed to better understand and address the reasons for these disparities.
Public pensions in the United States face an impending funding crisis in the wake of the financial crisis and the COVID-19 recession. Many cities and states will struggle to meet these growing obligations without major cuts in government services, reneging on pension promises, or raising taxes. This Element examines the development of the pension crisis through the lens of political economy. We analyze the knowledge and incentive problems inherent in the institutional structure, governance, and accounting of public pensions. We conclude by offering several institutional, governance, and reporting reforms to address the pension funding crisis.
In the UK, acute mental healthcare is provided by in-patient wards and crisis resolution teams. Readmission to acute care following discharge is common. Acute day units (ADUs) are also provided in some areas.
Aims
To assess predictors of readmission to acute mental healthcare following discharge in England, including availability of ADUs.
Method
We enrolled a national cohort of adults discharged from acute mental healthcare in the English National Health Service (NHS) between 2013 and 2015, determined the risk of readmission to either in-patient or crisis teams, and used multivariable, multilevel logistic models to evaluate predictors of readmission.
Results
Of a total of 231 998 eligible individuals discharged from acute mental healthcare, 49 547 (21.4%) were readmitted within 6 months, with a median time to readmission of 34 days (interquartile range 10–88 days). Most variation in readmission (98%) was attributable to individual patient-level rather than provider (trust)-level effects (2.0%). Risk of readmission was not associated with local availability of ADUs (adjusted odds ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.80–1.15). Statistically significant elevated risks were identified for participants who were female, older, single, from Black or mixed ethnic groups, or from more deprived areas. Clinical predictors included shorter index admission, psychosis and being an in-patient at baseline.
Conclusions
Relapse and readmission to acute mental healthcare are common following discharge and occur early. Readmission was not influenced significantly by trust-level variables including availability of ADUs. More support for relapse prevention and symptom management may be required following discharge from acute mental healthcare.
The 2020 update of the Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations (CSBPR) for the Secondary Prevention of Stroke includes current evidence-based recommendations and expert opinions intended for use by clinicians across a broad range of settings. They provide guidance for the prevention of ischemic stroke recurrence through the identification and management of modifiable vascular risk factors. Recommendations address triage, diagnostic testing, lifestyle behaviors, vaping, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, other cardiac conditions, antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies, and carotid and vertebral artery disease. This update of the previous 2017 guideline contains several new or revised recommendations. Recommendations regarding triage and initial assessment of acute transient ischemic attack (TIA) and minor stroke have been simplified, and selected aspects of the etiological stroke workup are revised. Updated treatment recommendations based on new evidence have been made for dual antiplatelet therapy for TIA and minor stroke; anticoagulant therapy for atrial fibrillation; embolic strokes of undetermined source; low-density lipoprotein lowering; hypertriglyceridemia; diabetes treatment; and patent foramen ovale management. A new section has been added to provide practical guidance regarding temporary interruption of antithrombotic therapy for surgical procedures. Cancer-associated ischemic stroke is addressed. A section on virtual care delivery of secondary stroke prevention services in included to highlight a shifting paradigm of care delivery made more urgent by the global pandemic. In addition, where appropriate, sex differences as they pertain to treatments have been addressed. The CSBPR include supporting materials such as implementation resources to facilitate the adoption of evidence into practice and performance measures to enable monitoring of uptake and effectiveness of recommendations.
We provide an overview of the monetary policy failures that resulted in the 2007–2008 financial crisis and ensuing Great Recession, focusing on the United States. Before the crisis, monetary policy was too loose, which fueled the bubble. After the bubble burst, monetary policy became too tight, hindering the recovery. These failures are fundamentally due to the Federal Reserve’s discretionary monetary policy. Furthermore, the popular approach of “constrained discretion” is really just discretion. Hence, it is sensitive to all the usual problems with discretionary monetary policy. Only firm monetary rules, ones that actually bind, can maintain macroeconomic stability and prevent crises.
Orthodox monetary policy scholarship assumes that central bankers act to maximize the public welfare. If imperfect incentives enter the model, it is on the part of the public. We challenge this assumption. Monetary policymakers are just as prone to incentive problems, which cause them to act according to their own self-interest. Furthermore, the self-interest of policymakers is not always the same thing as the public welfare. The two diverge frequently, in fact. We survey the history of the Federal Reserve and show the numerous ways discretionary central bankers have been compromised. These incentive problems are an inherent feature of discretion. They can only be eliminated by embracing true monetary rules.
We analyze the information problems inherent in discretionary monetary policy. Discretionary central bankers confront immense informational burdens. Some of these are technical problems only, and can in principle be overcome. But there is also a genuine knowledge problem involved in discretionary monetary policy: reacting in real time to changes in the demand for money. This problem is unsolvable. It renders discretionary central banking systematically unlikely to achieve macroeconomic stability. In contrast, rules-based policy does not confront a knowledge problem.
We conclude by situating the theory and practice of monetary policy within liberal political economy more generally. As we have seen, there are significant tensions between existing monetary institutions (discretionary central banking) and liberal ideals. This has been made even clearer by the Federal Reserve’s response to COVID-19. In brief, the Fed is now engaging in not only monetary policy but fiscal policy as well. This represents an immense expansion in its mandate, one that poses serious challenges for general and predictable monetary policy. The way out of this mess is embracing a comparative institutions approach to monetary policy. We cannot be satisfied with technical refinements to existing models and data. We need to explore alternative monetary policy rules, ones that are effective at providing macroeconomic stability while also respecting the requirements of democracy.
At root, the problems with the Federal Reserve (and many other central banks) are institutional. The repeated recessions and crises in the era of the Fed show that we need a radical reimagination of the basic institutions of monetary policy. In this chapter, we survey the work of the three great classically liberal Nobel laureates of the twentieth century – James Buchanan, F. A. Hayek, and Milton Friedman – to show that each of them gave serious consideration to monetary-institutional fundamentals. Our focus is not on their particular conclusions, but on how they thought about the problems of monetary institutional design. This represents a very different style of scholarship than macroeconomists and monetary economists currently practice. Unless scholars engage the research projects of Buchanan, Hayek, and Friedman, research in monetary economics will not be of much help in achieving lasting macroeconomic stability.
Financial crises are widely perceived to be the reason monetary rules cannot work. The extraordinary challenges posed by crises require policymakers to act discretionarily. We show that this argument is not only wrong but backward: It is more important than ever to have true rules for monetary policy, which actually bind, to cope with financial crises. We show how the Fed failed to respond appropriately to the 2007–2008 crisis. Contrary to the then chairman Bernanke’s public statements, the Fed did not behave as an orthodox lender of last resort. Instead, it experimented with dubious policies that further entrenched moral hazard in the financial system. We criticize these policies, as well as an approach to economics, which we call “triage economics,” that mistakenly supposes the basic rules of price theory provided no guidance in crafting policy responses to crises. A rules-based approach to monetary policy is thus consistent with extreme market turbulence. In fact, rules are how such turbulence is pacified.
In this chapter, we focus on the idea of the rule of law in the classical liberal tradition. The rule of law is a basic jurisprudential norm that undergirds liberal democracies. We show that discretionary central banking is inconsistent with the rule of law. Discretionary central banking fails the test of generality: It benefits special interests, but not the public as a whole. Also, discretionary banking fails the test of predictability: It does not create an environment conducive to reliable public expectations of future policy. For these reasons, it is unlikely that discretionary central banking can be reconciled with self-governance. We reaffirm the imperative of liberal democracy, as well as uncovering monetary institutions that are compatible with liberal democracy. Until we do so, we fail to meet the basic challenge of self-governance.