This paper examines the critical issue of public confidence in sentencing, and presents findings from Phase I of an Australia-wide sentencing and public confidence project. Phase I comprised a nationally representative telephone survey of 6005 participants. The majority of respondents expressed high levels of punitiveness and were dissatisfied with sentences imposed by the courts. Despite this, many were strongly supportive of the use of alternatives to imprisonment for a range of offences. These nuanced views raise questions regarding the efficacy of gauging public opinion using opinion poll style questions; indeed the expected outcome from this first phase of the four phase sentencing and public confidence project. The following phases of this project, reported on elsewhere, examined the effects of various interventions on the robustness and nature of these views initially expressed in a standard ‘top of the head’ opinion poll.
<p><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">On behalf of the guest editors of this special issue, leading scholars and practitioners in the therapeutic jurisprudence (‘TJ’) field in Australia, Europe, and the US, we congratulate QUT and the authors for a valuable contribution to the increasingly influential presence of TJ on the international stage.</span></em></p><p><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">TJ had its genesis in the early 1990s as a new interdisciplinary approach to mental health law in the US, but has expanded remarkably in scope, reach and influence since then. TJ sees law as a social force which inevitably gives rise to unintended consequences, which may be either beneficial or harmful (what we have come to identify as therapeutic or anti-therapeutic consequences). These consequences flow from the operation of substantive rules, legal procedures, or from the behaviour of legal actors (such as lawyers and judges). It is in this sense that we conceive of the role of the law as a ‘therapeutic agent’. TJ researchers and practitioners typically make use of social science methods and data to study the extent to which a legal rule or practice affects the psychological well-being of the people it affects, and then explore ways in which anti-therapeutic consequences can be reduced, and therapeutic consequences enhanced, without breaching due process requirements. The jurisdiction with which TJ was most often associated in its earlier days tended to the that of the drug courts (in which the drug court team assists drug addicted offenders to break out of their cycle of offending by facilitating and supervising treatment programs as part of the court process itself) and the other so-called problem solving courts (more commonly referred to as ‘solution focussed courts’ in Australia).</span></em></p>
COVIDTrach is a UK multidisciplinary collaborative project that aims to evaluate the outcomes of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients. It also examines the implementation of national guidance in COVID-19 tracheostomies and the incidence of COVID-19 infections amongst those health care workers involved in the procedure.
An invitation to participate in an online survey tool (REDCap) was disseminated to all UK NHS departments involved in tracheostomy in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients via the Federation of Surgical Specialty Associations, it's subsidiary organisations and the Intensive Care Society. To date 78 hospitals have submitted 564 COVID-19 tracheostomy cases.
Fifty-two percent (n=219/465) of patients who had undergone tracheostomy and were still alive, had been successfully weaned from mechanical ventilation at the point of completing the survey. The all cause in-hospital mortality following tracheostomy was 12% (n=62/530), with 3% of these (n=2/62) due to tracheostomy related complications and the remaining deaths due to COVID-19 related complications. Amongst 400 cases submitting data two weeks after the tracheostomy, no instance of COVID-19 infection amongst operators was recorded. FFP3 masks or Powered Air Purifying Respirators were used by operators in 100% of tracheostomies and a face visor or hood with face shield was available in 99% of cases.
This interim report highlights early outcomes following tracheostomy in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. Future reporting from COVIDTrach will include more detailed analysis at later timepoints using comparator groups in order to provide a more comprehensive assessment of tracheostomy in COVID-19.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.