At the precipice: Australia’s community sector through the cost-of-living crisis, findings from the Australian Community Sector Survey.

This report outlines how Australia's community sector was experiencing challenges during late 2022. Data comes from the Australian Community Sector Survey (ACSS), conducted by the Social Policy Research Centre at UNSW Sydney, in collaboration with the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and the State and Territory Councils of Social Service of Australia. The information comes from 1,476 community sector staff, including 318 CEOs and senior managers. Findings offer insight into the operational challenges confronting the sector, including funding, contracting and workforce issues. Service providers have faced unprecedented pressure to help growing numbers of people in need, yet resource levels remain inadequate. As a result, community organisations struggle not only to help as many people as possible, but also to plan, optimise and manage all aspects of delivering complex and essential services in a context of rising costs

Targeting methionyl tRNA synthetase: design, synthesis and antibacterial activity against Clostridium difficileof novel 3-biaryl-N-benzylpropan-1-amine derivatives

The synthesis of a series of benzimidazole-N-benzylpropan-1-amines and adenine-N-benzylpropan-1-amines is described. Subsequent evaluation against two strains of the anaerobic bacterium Clostridium difficile was performed with three amine derivatives displaying MIC values of 16 μg/mL. Molecular docking studies of the described amines determined that the amines interact within two active site pockets of C. difficile methionyl tRNA synthetase with methoxy substituents in the benzyl ring and an adenine biaryl moiety resulting in optimal binding interaction

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

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

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. 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-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. 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%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated 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 (median10 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, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor 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 otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

M. J. Blaxland

"M. J. Blaxland 66580 RAAF Nth Western area Bachelor. 19 Taren Rd Crringbah [NSW]".M. J. Blaxland 66580. Royal Australian Air Force, North Western area, Batchelor. 19 Taren Road, Carringbah [New South Wales]

Training and workforce development in Specialist Homelessness Services

This report analyses the perspectives of workers and leaders on training needs, and other learning and workforce development initiatives in the Specialist Homelessness Services (SHS) sector. Information is based on survey responses of 441 staff involved in delivering SHS in NSW, which was conducted in October and November 2018. By monitoring trends in capacity and sustainability in SHS, the research aims to inform sector-wide and organisational initiatives to develop capacity to ensure all SHS clients receive high quality services

The profile and pulse of the sector: Findings from the 2019 Australian Community Sector Survey

This report profiles Australia’s community service sector, highlighting the sector’s characteristics and strengths as it works to address poverty and disadvantage. Information is based on responses to the Australian Community Sector Survey (ACSS), conducted by the Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, in collaboration with Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and the COSS Network. The national survey was completed by 1454 community sector staff, including 406 organisational leaders, in October 2019

Meeting community needs in difficult times: experience of Australia’s community sector

Australian communities, and the community service organisations that support them, remain under pressure amidst expectations of increasing poverty and homelessness in 2021. This report examines how Australia’s community services sector is addressing high levels of need in the community during early 2021, a period in which Australian communities sought to recover from the crises of 2020. These crises began with severe bushfires followed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and are not yet resolved. They have exacerbated the very high levels of poverty and inequality which successive governments have allowed to accumulate over decades.As part of the Australian Community Sector Study, the Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC) was contracted by the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), in partnership with the Councils of Social Service, to conduct research into the experiences of the community sector during early 2021. Drawing on interviews and focus groups with 35 community sector leaders working in diverse contexts across Australia, this report shows that the sector is confronting rising levels of need and increasingly complex experiences of hardship in the community. Exclusion of some populations from government support increased pressures on community services and supports. In early 2021, many services were bracing for the withdrawal of the support measures which had temporarily alleviated some of the pressures on households and on community service systems during 2020, including the Coronavirus Supplement, moratoriums on evictions, and JobKeeper. Sector leaders wanted to see short-term measures translated into the more enduring strategies and investments needed to bolster capacity and to progress shared agendas of economic, social and community development for Australia’s recovery