Nurses’ perceptions of the root causes of community‐acquired pressure ulcers: Application of the Model for Examining Safety and Quality Concerns in Home Healthcare

Abstract Aims and objectives To explore how the context of care influences the development of community‐acquired pressure ulcers from the perspective of nurses working in home healthcare settings, to identify and categorise the factors perceived as contributing to the development of these ulcers using the Model for Examining Safety and Quality Concerns in Home Healthcare, and to explore how these risks are managed in practice. Background Pressure ulcer reduction is a priority in both hospital and community settings. Evidence suggests the factors affecting safety and performance in community settings are not the same as in hospital. However, research pertaining to pressure ulcer risk management has predominantly been undertaken in hospital settings. Design The study was framed by a qualitative exploratory design. Methods Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 19 registered nurses recruited from an independent regional tissue viability network and five community nursing provider organisations in London. Results The experiences and perceptions of participants mapped onto the components of the Model for Examining Safety and Quality Concerns in Home HealthCare: patient characteristics, provider characteristics, nature of home healthcare tasks, social and community environment, medical devices and new technology, physical environment, and external environment. Four strategies to address identified risks were established: behavioural interventions, technical interventions, safeguarding interventions and initiatives to promote better integration between health, local authorities and families. Conclusion Understanding the complex interplay between people and other elements of the healthcare system is critical to the prevention, management and investigation of pressure ulcers. This study has illuminated these elements from the perspective of nurses working in community settings. Relevance to clinical practice Further consideration should be given to the importance of place when both developing risk management strategies for pressure ulcer prevention and learning the lessons from failure

Brain-Age Prediction: Systematic Evaluation of Site Effects, and Sample Age Range and Size

Structural neuroimaging data have been used to compute an estimate of the biological age of the brain (brain‐age) which has been associated with other biologically and behaviorally meaningful measures of brain development and aging. The ongoing research interest in brain‐age has highlighted the need for robust and publicly available brain‐age models pre‐trained on data from large samples of healthy individuals. To address this need we have previously released a developmental brain‐age model. Here we expand this work to develop, empirically validate, and disseminate a pre‐trained brain‐age model to cover most of the human lifespan. To achieve this, we selected the best‐performing model after systematically examining the impact of seven site harmonization strategies, age range, and sample size on brain‐age prediction in a discovery sample of brain morphometric measures from 35,683 healthy individuals (age range: 5–90 years; 53.59% female). The pre‐trained models were tested for cross‐dataset generalizability in an independent sample comprising 2101 healthy individuals (age range: 8–80 years; 55.35% female) and for longitudinal consistency in a further sample comprising 377 healthy individuals (age range: 9–25 years; 49.87% female). This empirical examination yielded the following findings: (1) the accuracy of age prediction from morphometry data was higher when no site harmonization was applied; (2) dividing the discovery sample into two age‐bins (5–40 and 40–90 years) provided a better balance between model accuracy and explained age variance than other alternatives; (3) model accuracy for brain‐age prediction plateaued at a sample size exceeding 1600 participants. These findings have been incorporated into CentileBrain (https://centilebrain.org/#/brainAGE2), an open‐science, web‐based platform for individualized neuroimaging metrics

Brain-Age Prediction: Systematic Evaluation of Site Effects, and Sample Age Range and Size

Structural neuroimaging data have been used to compute an estimate of the biological age of the brain (brain‐age) which has been associated with other biologically and behaviorally meaningful measures of brain development and aging. The ongoing research interest in brain‐age has highlighted the need for robust and publicly available brain‐age models pre‐trained on data from large samples of healthy individuals. To address this need we have previously released a developmental brain‐age model. Here we expand this work to develop, empirically validate, and disseminate a pre‐trained brain‐age model to cover most of the human lifespan. To achieve this, we selected the best‐performing model after systematically examining the impact of seven site harmonization strategies, age range, and sample size on brain‐age prediction in a discovery sample of brain morphometric measures from 35,683 healthy individuals (age range: 5–90 years; 53.59% female). The pre‐trained models were tested for cross‐dataset generalizability in an independent sample comprising 2101 healthy individuals (age range: 8–80 years; 55.35% female) and for longitudinal consistency in a further sample comprising 377 healthy individuals (age range: 9–25 years; 49.87% female). This empirical examination yielded the following findings: (1) the accuracy of age prediction from morphometry data was higher when no site harmonization was applied; (2) dividing the discovery sample into two age‐bins (5–40 and 40–90 years) provided a better balance between model accuracy and explained age variance than other alternatives; (3) model accuracy for brain‐age prediction plateaued at a sample size exceeding 1600 participants. These findings have been incorporated into CentileBrain (https://centilebrain.org/#/brainAGE2), an open‐science, web‐based platform for individualized neuroimaging metrics

Brain‐age prediction: systematic evaluation of site effects, and sample age range and size

Structural neuroimaging data have been used to compute an estimate of the biological age of the brain (brain‐age) which has been associated with other biologically and behaviorally meaningful measures of brain development and aging. The ongoing research interest in brain‐age has highlighted the need for robust and publicly available brain‐age models pre‐trained on data from large samples of healthy individuals. To address this need we have previously released a developmental brain‐age model. Here we expand this work to develop, empirically validate, and disseminate a pre‐trained brain‐age model to cover most of the human lifespan. To achieve this, we selected the best‐performing model after systematically examining the impact of seven site harmonization strategies, age range, and sample size on brain‐age prediction in a discovery sample of brain morphometric measures from 35,683 healthy individuals (age range: 5–90 years; 53.59% female). The pre‐trained models were tested for cross‐dataset generalizability in an independent sample comprising 2101 healthy individuals (age range: 8–80 years; 55.35% female) and for longitudinal consistency in a further sample comprising 377 healthy individuals (age range: 9–25 years; 49.87% female). This empirical examination yielded the following findings: (1) the accuracy of age prediction from morphometry data was higher when no site harmonization was applied; (2) dividing the discovery sample into two age‐bins (5–40 and 40–90 years) provided a better balance between model accuracy and explained age variance than other alternatives; (3) model accuracy for brain‐age prediction plateaued at a sample size exceeding 1600 participants. These findings have been incorporated into CentileBrain (https://centilebrain.org/#/brainAGE2), an open‐science, web‐based platform for individualized neuroimaging metrics

Brain‐age prediction:Systematic evaluation of site effects, and sample age range and size

Structural neuroimaging data have been used to compute an estimate of the biological age of the brain (brain-age) which has been associated with other biologically and behaviorally meaningful measures of brain development and aging. The ongoing research interest in brain-age has highlighted the need for robust and publicly available brain-age models pre-trained on data from large samples of healthy individuals. To address this need we have previously released a developmental brain-age model. Here we expand this work to develop, empirically validate, and disseminate a pre-trained brain-age model to cover most of the human lifespan. To achieve this, we selected the best-performing model after systematically examining the impact of seven site harmonization strategies, age range, and sample size on brain-age prediction in a discovery sample of brain morphometric measures from 35,683 healthy individuals (age range: 5–90 years; 53.59% female). The pre-trained models were tested for cross-dataset generalizability in an independent sample comprising 2101 healthy individuals (age range: 8–80 years; 55.35% female) and for longitudinal consistency in a further sample comprising 377 healthy individuals (age range: 9–25 years; 49.87% female). This empirical examination yielded the following findings: (1) the accuracy of age prediction from morphometry data was higher when no site harmonization was applied; (2) dividing the discovery sample into two age-bins (5–40 and 40–90 years) provided a better balance between model accuracy and explained age variance than other alternatives; (3) model accuracy for brain-age prediction plateaued at a sample size exceeding 1600 participants. These findings have been incorporated into CentileBrain (https://centilebrain.org/#/brainAGE2), an open-science, web-based platform for individualized neuroimaging metrics.<br/

A Meaningful U.S. Cap-and-Trade System to Address Climate Change

There is growing impetus for a domestic U.S. climate policy that can provide meaningful reductions in emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. In this article, I propose and analyze a scientifically sound, economically rational, and politically feasible approach for the United States to reduce its contributions to the increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. The proposal features an up-stream, economy-wide CO2 cap-and-trade system which implements a gradual trajectory of emissions reductions over time, and includes mechanisms to reduce cost uncertainty. I compare the proposed system with frequently discussed alternatives. In addition, I describe common objections to a cap-and-trade approach to the problem, and provide responses to these objections