Suspended Culture: Agritecture for a Contemporary Climate

This thesis explores how the relationship between wetland restoration and farming on Maryland’s Eastern Shore create resilient coastal infrastructure. Coastal communities were designed for a climate that no longer exists and are ill equipped to face the rapidly changing landscape due to climate change. The Chesapeake Bay is already facing saltwater intrusion, rising sea levels, warmer temperature, and more frequent extreme weather events that threaten the productivity and livelihood of people, plants, and animals of Maryland’s Eastern Shore. Farms whose practice is threatened by the new climate can actually utilize wetlands intentionally for protection from flooding, poor water and soil quality, and pollution. Therefore, this thesis is aimed at designing a resilient farm and wetland park in an area whose history is closely woven with that of the land and agriculture. In the interest of longevity, the three design criteria are (1) closeness with and respect for the landscape, (2) adaptability, and (3) carbon neutrality. Overall, the coastal farm and wetland park seeks for design solutions to resilient and sustainable infrastructure in the intersections between the built and natural environment

Bioclimatic Design: Research at Assateague State Park

Final project for ARCH600/611: Urban Studies and Planning Studio (Fall 2021). University of Maryland, College Park.Through their work with the National Center for Smart Growth at the University of Maryland (UMD), the Maryland Department of Natural Resources commissioned this report from the university’s Partnership for Action Learning in Sustainability (PALS). This research study, conducted in a graduate level design studio, began with a shared vision that people and nature can co-exist in a mutually beneficial relationship. Angela Baldwin, Park Manager at Assateague State Park, and her colleagues from NOAA, the Maryland Park Service, the Chesapeake Coastal Service, and other DNR offices, challenged the University of Maryland team to test this vision in the design of a new day use facility for Assateague State Park, a much-beloved, special place that is increasingly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. The climate crisis requires architects to deepen their understanding of resilient design strategies. These range from place-based climate-responsive knowledge rarely taught in schools of architecture, to more technically advanced tools such as computer energy modeling, efficient mechanical equipment and on-site renewable energy.Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR

Risk of Guillain-Barr\ue9 syndrome after 2010-2011 influenza vaccination

Influenza vaccination has been implicated in Guillain Barr\ue9 Syndrome (GBS) although the evidence for this link is controversial. A case-control study was conducted between October 2010 and May 2011 in seven Italian Regions to explore the relation between influenza vaccination and GBS. The study included 176 GBS incident cases aged 6518 years from 86 neurological centers. Controls were selected among patients admitted for acute conditions to the Emergency Department of the same hospital as cases. Each control was matched to a case by sex, age, Region and admission date. Two different analyses were conducted: a matched case-control analysis and a self-controlled case series analysis (SCCS). Case-control analysis included 140 cases matched to 308 controls. The adjusted matched odds ratio (OR) for GBS occurrence within 6 weeks after influenza vaccination was 3.8 (95 % CI: 1.3, 10.5). A much stronger association with gastrointestinal infections (OR = 23.8; 95 % CI 7.3, 77.6) and influenza-like illness or upper respiratory tract infections (OR = 11.5; 95 % CI 5.6, 23.5) was highlighted. The SCCS analysis included all 176 GBS cases. Influenza vaccination was associated with GBS, with a relative risk of 2.1 (95 % CI 1.1, 3.9). According to these results the attributable risk in adults ranges from two to five GBS cases per 1,000,000 vaccinations

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseBackground: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research