Factors that shape pedagogical practices in next generation learning spaces

International figures on university expenditure on the development of next generation learning spaces (NGLS) are not readily available but anecdote suggests that simply retrofitting an existing classroom as an NGLS conservatively costs $AUD200,000, while developing new buildings often cost in the region of 100 million dollars and over the last five years, many universities in Australia, Europe and North America have developed new buildings. Despite this considerable investment, it appears that the full potential of these spaces is not being realised. While researchers argue that a more student centred learning approach to teaching has inspired the design of next generation learning spaces (Tom, Voss, & Scheetz, 2008) and that changed spaces change practice (Joint Information Systems Committee, 2009) when 'confronted' with a next generation learning spaces for the first time, anecdotes suggest that many academics resort to teaching as they have always taught and as they were taught. This chapter highlights factors that influence teaching practices, showing that they are to be found in the external, organisational and personal domains. We argue that in order to fully realise significant improvements in student outcomes through the sector's investment in next generation learning spaces, universities need to provide holistic and systematic support across three domains - the external, the organisational and the personal domains, by changing policies, systems, procedures and localised practices to better facilitate changes in teaching practices that maximise the potential of next generation learning spaces

Level of agreement between frequently used cardiovascular risk calculators in people living with HIV

Objectives The aim of the study was to describe agreement between the QRISK2, Framingham and Data Collection on Adverse Events of Anti‐HIV Drugs (D:A:D) cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculators in a large UK study of people living with HIV (PLWH). Methods PLWH enrolled in the Pharmacokinetic and Clinical Observations in People over Fifty (POPPY) study without a prior CVD event were included in this study. QRISK2, Framingham CVD and the full and reduced D:A:D CVD scores were calculated; participants were stratified into ‘low’ ( 20%) categories for each. Agreement between scores was assessed using weighted kappas and Bland–Altman plots. Results The 730 included participants were predominantly male (636; 87.1%) and of white ethnicity (645; 88.5%), with a median age of 53 [interquartile range (IQR) 49–59] years. The median calculated 10‐year CVD risk was 11.9% (IQR 6.8–18.4%), 8.9% (IQR 4.6–15.0%), 8.5% (IQR 4.8–14.6%) and 6.9% (IQR 4.1–11.1%) when using the Framingham, QRISK2, and full and reduced D:A:D scores, respectively. Agreement between the different scores was generally moderate, with the highest level of agreement being between the Framingham and QRISK2 scores (weighted kappa = 0.65) but with most other kappa coefficients in the 0.50–0.60 range. Conclusions Estimates of predicted 10‐year CVD risk obtained with commonly used CVD risk prediction tools demonstrate, in general, only moderate agreement among PLWH in the UK. While further validation with clinical endpoints is required, our findings suggest that care should be taken when interpreting any score alone

Aspirin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background Aspirin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its anti-thrombotic properties. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of aspirin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial, several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The trial took place at 177 hospitals in the UK, two hospitals in Indonesia, and two hospitals in Nepal. Eligible and consenting adults were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either usual standard of care plus 150 mg aspirin once per day until discharge or usual standard of care alone using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. The primary outcome was 28 day mortality. All analyses were done by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings Between Nov 1, 2020, and March 21, 2021, 14 892 (66%) of 22 560 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were eligible to be randomly allocated to aspirin. 7351 patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive aspirin and 7541 patients to receive usual care alone. Overall, 1222 (17%) of 7351 patients allocated to aspirin and 1299 (17%) of 7541 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·89–1·04; p=0·35). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients. Patients allocated to aspirin had a slightly shorter duration of hospitalisation (median 8 days, IQR 5 to >28, vs 9 days, IQR 5 to >28) and a higher proportion were discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (75% vs 74%; rate ratio 1·06, 95% CI 1·02–1·10; p=0·0062). Among patients not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (21% vs 22%; risk ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·90–1·03; p=0·23). Aspirin use was associated with a reduction in thrombotic events (4·6% vs 5·3%; absolute reduction 0·6%, SE 0·4%) and an increase in major bleeding events (1·6% vs 1·0%; absolute increase 0·6%, SE 0·2%). Interpretation In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, aspirin was not associated with reductions in 28 day mortality or in the risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, but was associated with a small increase in the rate of being discharged alive within 28 days. Funding UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), National Institute of Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator

Higher education in nursing: the faculty work process in different institutional contexts

Objective To analyze the characteristics of faculty work in nursing higher education. Method An exploratory qualitative study with a theoretical-methodological framework of dialectical and historical materialism. The faculty work process was adopted as the analytical category, grounded on conceptions of work and professionalism. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 faculty members from three higher education institutions in the city of São Paulo, classified according to the typology of institutional contexts. Results The faculty members at these higher education institutions are a heterogeneous group, under different working conditions. Intensification and precarious conditions of the faculty work is common to all three contexts, although there are important distinctions in the practices related to teaching, research and extension. Conclusion Faculty professionalization can be the starting point for analyzing and coping with such a distinct reality of faculty work and practice

Azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatory actions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once per day by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatment groups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment and were twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants and local study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) were eligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was 65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomly allocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall, 561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median 10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, no significant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24). Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restricted to patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication. Funding UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. METHODS: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. FINDINGS: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93-1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94-1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93-1·05; p=0·79). INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research