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 no-reply@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.
A robust quality management system (QMS) is crucial to ensure the oocyte collection procedure in the IVF laboratory is fit for purpose. The QMS is a stipulation of the HFEA licence and comprises quality control, quality assurance and quality improvement. For a successful egg collection, the following quality aspects must be considered: equipment selection and validation, temperature monitoring, air quality, reprotoxicity, traceability, batch testing, risk assessment, training, process validation, competence, key performance indicators, audit, documentation, and third-party agreements. Quality activities are infiltrated throughout the whole process of egg collection to achieve the best possible outcome for the patient, and to make continual improvements.
Background: Healthcare facilities have experienced many challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, including limited personal protective equipment (PPE) supplies. Healthcare personnel (HCP) rely on PPE, vaccines, and other infection control measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections. We describe PPE concerns reported by HCP who had close contact with COVID-19 patients in the workplace and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Method: The CDC collaborated with Emerging Infections Program (EIP) sites in 10 states to conduct surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 infections in HCP. EIP staff interviewed HCP with positive SARS-CoV-2 viral tests (ie, cases) to collect data on demographics, healthcare roles, exposures, PPE use, and concerns about their PPE use during COVID-19 patient care in the 14 days before the HCP’s SARS-CoV-2 positive test. PPE concerns were qualitatively coded as being related to supply (eg, low quality, shortages); use (eg, extended use, reuse, lack of fit test); or facility policy (eg, lack of guidance). We calculated and compared the percentages of cases reporting each concern type during the initial phase of the pandemic (April–May 2020), during the first US peak of daily COVID-19 cases (June–August 2020), and during the second US peak (September 2020–January 2021). We compared percentages using mid-P or Fisher exact tests (α = 0.05). Results: Among 1,998 HCP cases occurring during April 2020–January 2021 who had close contact with COVID-19 patients, 613 (30.7%) reported ≥1 PPE concern (Table 1). The percentage of cases reporting supply or use concerns was higher during the first peak period than the second peak period (supply concerns: 12.5% vs 7.5%; use concerns: 25.5% vs 18.2%; p Conclusions: Although lower percentages of HCP cases overall reported PPE concerns after the first US peak, our results highlight the importance of developing capacity to produce and distribute PPE during times of increased demand. The difference we observed among selected groups of cases may indicate that PPE access and use were more challenging for some, such as nonphysicians and nursing home HCP. These findings underscore the need to ensure that PPE is accessible and used correctly by HCP for whom use is recommended.
The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) aims to revolutionise the way we work within the clinical IVF laboratory by offering invaluable assistance to the scientists selecting embryos for transfer. AI does this by removing the human operator from the process, allowing digital systems to feed on the data through a process called datamining. The AI system establishes artificial neural networks and essentially learns which embryo parameters are associated with desirable or undesirable outcomes (1). The aim is to accurately detect the viability of embryos and rank them according to their implantation potential, thus increasing confidence in single embryo transfer and time to pregnancy. By performing entirely objectively, with precise scrutiny and with a wealth of data not accessible to the scientist, this computerised approach is designed to outperform the embryologist. However, despite efforts to establish a firm place for AI during routine IVF, to date there is little evidence it will serve as a useful clinical tool. Although the non-invasive nature of AI appeals to professionals and patients as being seemingly harmless, the technology has multiple flaws that currently prevent its promotion to anything other than yet another useless and risky IVF ‘add-on’.
Healthcare personnel with severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection were interviewed to describe activities and practices in and outside the workplace. Among 2,625 healthcare personnel, workplace-related factors that may increase infection risk were more common among nursing-home personnel than hospital personnel, whereas selected factors outside the workplace were more common among hospital personnel.
Desiderius Erasmus was a significant figure in early sixteenth-century England, and many of his works were translated into English during the reign of Henry VIII. In the process of translation the original intention of these works was subverted as Erasmus's reputation was appropriated by his translators and their patrons for their own purposes. His works were recast in English form to serve a variety of different agendas, from those of Henrician conservatives to Protestants pushing for more radical religious reform. This article looks at some of these translations, showing how they illustrate the variations in religious attitudes during these volatile years and the competing claims for validation. In particular, Erasmus's pronouncements on the importance of Scripture translation were annexed and deployed in the debate over the English Bible, demonstrating how his views about translation were in themselves translated to reflect the political and religious needs of the English situation.
The history of the book is now recognized as a field of central importance for understanding the cultural changes that swept through Tudor England. This companion aims to provide a comprehensive guide to the issues relevant to theearly printed book, covering the significant cultural, social and technological developments from 1476 (the introduction of printing to England) to 1558 (the death of Mary Tudor). Divided into thematic sections (the printed booktrade; the book as artefact; patrons, purchasers and producers; and the cultural capital of print), it considers the social, historical, and cultural context of the rise of print, with the problems as well as advantages of the transmission from manuscript to print. the printers of the period; the significant Latin trade and its effect on the English market; paper, types, bindings, and woodcuts and other decorative features which create the packaged book; and the main sponsors and consumers of the printed book: merchants, the lay clientele, secular and religious clergy, and the two Universities, as well as secular colleges and chantries. Further topics addressed include humanism, women translators, and the role of censorship and the continuity of Catholic publishing from that time. The book is completed with a chronology and detailed indices. Vincent Gillespie is J.R.R. Tolkien Professor of English Literature and Language at the University of Oxford; Susan Powell held a Chair in Medieval Texts and Culture at the University of Salford, and is currently affiliated to the Universities of London and York. Contributors: Tamara Atkin, Alan Coates, Thomas Betteridge, Julia Boffey, James Clark, A.S.G. Edwards, Martha W. Driver, Mary Erler, Alexandra Gilespie, Vincent Gillespie, Andrew Hope, Brenda Hosington, Susan Powerll, Pamela Robinson, AnneF. Sutton, Daniel Wakelin, James Willoughby, Lucy Wooding
Edited by
Vincent Gillespie, J.R.R. Tolkien Professor of English Literature and Language at the University of Oxford,Susan Powell, Held a Chair in Medieval Texts and Culture at the University of Salford, and is currently affiliated to the Universities of London and York
Edited by
Vincent Gillespie, J.R.R. Tolkien Professor of English Literature and Language at the University of Oxford,Susan Powell, Held a Chair in Medieval Texts and Culture at the University of Salford, and is currently affiliated to the Universities of London and York
Edited by
Vincent Gillespie, J.R.R. Tolkien Professor of English Literature and Language at the University of Oxford,Susan Powell, Held a Chair in Medieval Texts and Culture at the University of Salford, and is currently affiliated to the Universities of London and York
Edited by
Vincent Gillespie, J.R.R. Tolkien Professor of English Literature and Language at the University of Oxford,Susan Powell, Held a Chair in Medieval Texts and Culture at the University of Salford, and is currently affiliated to the Universities of London and York
Edited by
Vincent Gillespie, J.R.R. Tolkien Professor of English Literature and Language at the University of Oxford,Susan Powell, Held a Chair in Medieval Texts and Culture at the University of Salford, and is currently affiliated to the Universities of London and York
Edited by
Vincent Gillespie, J.R.R. Tolkien Professor of English Literature and Language at the University of Oxford,Susan Powell, Held a Chair in Medieval Texts and Culture at the University of Salford, and is currently affiliated to the Universities of London and York
Edited by
Vincent Gillespie, J.R.R. Tolkien Professor of English Literature and Language at the University of Oxford,Susan Powell, Held a Chair in Medieval Texts and Culture at the University of Salford, and is currently affiliated to the Universities of London and York
Edited by
Vincent Gillespie, J.R.R. Tolkien Professor of English Literature and Language at the University of Oxford,Susan Powell, Held a Chair in Medieval Texts and Culture at the University of Salford, and is currently affiliated to the Universities of London and York
Edited by
Vincent Gillespie, J.R.R. Tolkien Professor of English Literature and Language at the University of Oxford,Susan Powell, Held a Chair in Medieval Texts and Culture at the University of Salford, and is currently affiliated to the Universities of London and York
‘Preachers, players and printers… be set up of God, as a triple bulwark against the triple crown of the pope, to bring him down.’ John Foxe was quite sure that the invention of printing was a providential gift by which God hastened the advance of the true church. The link between printing and Protestantism has long been established in the historical imagination. Indeed, the arrival of printing has been seen as the first step in an even greater cultural transformation that incorporated Renaissance, Reformation, Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment. Despite the subtleties of most historical writing on the subject, there is still a tendency towards easy contrasts: medieval against early modern, manuscript against print, Catholic obscurantism against Protestant communication. This has dovetailed with the still-lingering popular narrative which portrays the pre-Reformation church as superstitious, corrupt and unpopular and contrasts it with a Protestant movement which was reformed, biblical, popular and progressive. The still pervasive conclusion is that the printing press was the foundation of Protestantism, because Protestantism was the religion of the book.
This network of assumptions is deeply misleading. There were of course points at which the nexus between print and Protestantism was particularly influential, such as in the German states in the 1520s, or with Foxe's own magisterial work, the Acts and Monuments, in Elizabethan England. The overall picture, however, is very different.
Edited by
Vincent Gillespie, J.R.R. Tolkien Professor of English Literature and Language at the University of Oxford,Susan Powell, Held a Chair in Medieval Texts and Culture at the University of Salford, and is currently affiliated to the Universities of London and York