Iris Action Trial Full Save.80

Because all the reasons why some infants are born early are not known or fully understood, the CDC is currently researching preterm birth. At the same time, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is carrying out prevention efforts that it coordinates across federal agencies.77 At the state and local level, health agencies and other organizations are also taking action by experimenting with new ways to screen and treat parents at increased risk of preterm birth.78

Iris Action Trial Full Save.80

Download File

To reduce the mortality and morbidity associated with preterm births, policymakers should make screening available to the full extent of current evidence-based guidelines and provide public funding to increase access to treatment through outreach, care coordination, and other supports. In all cases, health care providers should inform parents of this screening option as appropriate; work with patients to obtain informed consent; and then determine an appropriate course of action. If a woman is found to be at increased risk of preterm birth, either through a questionnaire or a cervical screening, doctors and other health care providers should ensure they help parents understand their treatment options and develop a plan to reduce their risk.

Preserved coastal habitats can play important roles in reducing risks related to some coastal hazards and initiatives are being put in place to reduce coastal squeeze, such as managed realignment (Sections 4.1, 4.4.3.1) which includes removing inland barriers (Doody, 20131066). Coastal squeeze can lead to degradation of coastal ecosystems and species (Martínez et al., 20141067), but if inland migration is unencumbered, observation data and modelling have shown that the net area of coastal ecosystems could increase under various scenarios of SLR, depending on the ecosystems considered (Torio and Chmura, 20151068; Kirwan et al., 20161069; Mills et al., 20161070). However, recent modelling research has shown that rapid SLR in a context of coastal squeeze could be detrimental to the areal extent and functionality of coastal ecosystems (Mills et al., 20161071) and, for marshes, could lead to a reduction of habitat complexity and loss of connectivity, thus affecting both aquatic and terrestrial organisms (Torio and Chmura, 20151072). Contraction of marsh extent is also identified by Kirwan et al. (2016)1073 when artificial barriers to landward migration are in place. Adaptation to SLR therefore needs to account for both development and conservation objectives so that trade-offs between protection and realignment that satisfy both objectives can be identified (Mills et al., 20161074).

Following earlier IPCC Reports Protection, Retreat and Accommodation responses to SLR and its impacts are distinguished between (Nicholls et al., 2007; Wong et al., 2014), and Advance is added as a fourth type of response that consists in building seaward and upward (Box 4.3). Advance had not received much attention in the climate change literature but plays an important role in coastal development across the world (e.g., Institution of Civil Engineers, 2010; Lee, 2014; Donchyts et al., 2016). The broader term response is used here instead of adaptation, because some responses such as retreat may or may not be meaningfully considered to be adaptation (Hinkel et al., 2018). Responses that address the causes of climate change, such as mitigating GHGs or geoengineering temperature and sea level responses to emissions fall beyond the scope of this chapter, and are addressed in SR1.5 (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2018). In coastal areas where anthropogenic subsidence contributes to relative SLR, another important type of response is the management of subsidence by, for instance, restricting ground fluid abstraction. Although this type of measure is considered in the risk assessment developed in Section 4.3.4, it is not assessed here due to a lack of space.

Basically, drug trials, for a long time, have undergone a particular system where you try a drug over a period of time in a small group of people who are healthy, to see if it's safe, if it has side effects, if it would harm you. Once that's done, and it can take a while, you then move to another level of testing called Phase II, where you test a small group of people to see if it's effective. Does it change the course of your disease? Are there markers in the blood system that show that it's taking effect? That takes a while. And then, if it's safe and seems to be effective, you do a much longer and bigger trial to make sure it works and that there aren't some adverse reactions that people hadn't counted on. This can take years.

The use of RFID offers many benefits to the healthcare industry related to patient safety, tracking, efficiencies in patient care, and provider satisfaction. Research shows that RFID can help to improve patient safety. RFID tags provide the ability to reduce misidentification issues in healthcare (Alqarni et al., 2014). Ohashi, Ota, Ohno-Machado, and Tanaka (2010) conducted a study using RFID technology to authenticate patients and medical staff during interventions such as medication administration and blood sampling. The study evaluated whether or not the RFID technology identification and confirmation methods were efficient and effective in the prevention of medical errors. The results of this study showed that the system correctly identified medical staff, patient ID, and medication and blood sampling data in real time. Ohashi et al. (2010) examined 27 workflow patterns for each of the three clinical interventions (administering IV medication, injection, and sampling blood) that were tested that provided 81 clinical scenarios. The study found that the point of care system using RFID technology was effective at recognizing individuals and medications. No critical errors occurred during the trial. With the implementation of RFID technology in the operating room, Ku, Wang, Su, Liu, and Hwang (2011) found an increase in patient identification verification from 75% pre-implementation, to 100% post-implementation. Physician time-out completion rates improved from 43% to 70%. Instrument loss decreased from 0.146% to 0.089%.

The strength of an authentication transaction is characterized by an ordinal measurement known as the AAL. Stronger authentication (a higher AAL) requires malicious actors to have better capabilities and expend greater resources in order to successfully subvert the authentication process. Authentication at higher AALs can effectively reduce the risk of attacks. A high-level summary of the technical requirements for each of the AALs is provided below; see Sections 4 and 5 of this document for specific normative requirements. 2ff7e9595c