Search

This report presents the new seismic hazard maps for the UK offshore Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) developed using a Monte Carlo-based approach. These are intended to update the current maps for UK waters published in 2002. The work done by the BGS team in this project has been informed at key stages by external experts who have reviewed the main components of the seismic hazard model. The analysis is based on a comprehensive catalogue of earthquake activity across the region developed by combining existing earthquake catalogues and data from regional and local monitoring agencies. Anthropogenic events such as those related to blasting, underwater explosions, mining and hydrocarbon exploration have been removed where possible. We also remove foreshocks and aftershocks to ensure that the catalogue only contains time-independent events. We then use published empirical magnitude conversion relationships to convert different magnitudes to moment magnitude (Mw) to ensure that the catalogue has consistent and homogeneous magnitudes across the region of interest. Finally, we assess catalogue completeness for different time intervals using both published information for the earthquake catalogues from the region and by examining cumulative and annual numbers of earthquakes for specific magnitudes. We model earthquake occurrence across the region using a seismic source characterisation (SSC) model that consists of a series of zones, where seismicity is considered to be homogeneous. The shape and extent of each zone are based on knowledge of the tectonics, geology and seismicity of the study area. We use four different seismic source zone models within the SSC to capture the epistemic uncertainty in different rupture scenarios but we do not include specific fault sources in the SSC model because of the difficulty relating earthquakes to particular faults. We estimate the rate of earthquake occurrence for each seismic source zone using the earthquake catalogue derived for the s

The Great Glen Fault (GGF) of Northern Scotland is a long-studied yet enigmatic fault structure. BGS interest in the movement history of the GGF, as part of a new UK-wide strategic initiative, has been stimulated by the Coire Glas project – a hydro-pumped storage scheme with the capability to double the current electricity storage capacity of Great Britain. This major civil engineering project will involve tunnelling through tectonised rocks associated with the GGF. Here, we outline a workflow for the characterisation of fault rocks using a fault gouge sample taken from the GGF close to the Coire Glas site. Our preliminary results show that the microstructure of the studied sample reflects a complex history of fracturing and related mineralization associated with movement on the GGF. We note that computerized tomography (CT) has proved a useful tool in confirming minimal disruption of the fault gouge material during sample preparation.

BACKGROUND: Unaddressed family adversity has potentially modifiable, negative biopsychosocial impacts across the life course. Little is known about how Australian health and social practitioners identify and respond to family adversity in community and primary health settings. OBJECTIVE: To describe, in two Australian community health services: (1) the number of adversities experienced by caregivers, (2) practitioner identification of caregivers experiencing adversity, (3) practitioner response to caregivers experiencing adversity, and (4) caregiver uptake of referrals. METHODS: Survey of caregivers of children aged 0-8 years attending community health services in Victoria and New South Wales (NSW). Analysis described frequencies of caregiver self-reported: (1) experiences of adversity, (2) practitioner identification of adversity, (3) practitioner response to adversity, and (4) referral uptake. Analyses were sub-grouped by three adversity domains and site. RESULTS: 349 caregivers (Victoria: n = 234; NSW: n = 115) completed the survey of whom 88% reported experiencing one or more family adversities. The median number of adversities was 4 (2-6). Only 43% of participants were directly asked about or discussed an adversity with a practitioner in the previous 6 months (Victoria: 30%; NSW: 68%). Among caregivers experiencing adversity, 30% received direct support (Victoria: 23%; NSW: 43%), and 14% received a referral (Victoria: 10%; NSW: 22%) for at least one adversity. Overall, 74% of caregivers accepted referrals when extended. CONCLUSION: The needs of Australian families experiencing high rates of adversity are not systematically identified nor responded to in community health services. This leaves significant scope for reform and enhancement of service responses to families experiencing adversity.

INTRODUCTION: Integrated community healthcare Hubs may offer a 'one stop shop' for service users with complex health and social needs, and more efficiently use service resources. Various policy imperatives exist to implement Hub models of care, however, there is a dearth of research specifically evaluating Hubs targeted at families experiencing adversity. To contribute to building this evidence, we propose to co-design, test and evaluate integrated Hub models of care in two Australian community health services in low socioeconomic areas that serve families experiencing adversity: Wyndham Vale in Victoria and Marrickville in New South Wales. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multisite convergent mixed-methods study will run over three phases to (1) develop the initial Hub programme theory through formative research; (2) test and, then, (3) refine the Hub theory using empirical data. Phase 1 involves co-design of each Hub with caregivers, community members and practitioners. Phase 2 uses caregiver and Hub practitioner surveys at baseline, and 6 and 12 months after Hub implementation, and in-depth interviews at 12 months. Two stakeholder groups will be recruited: caregivers (n=100-200 per site) and Hub practitioners (n=20-30 per site). The intervention is a co-located Hub providing health, social, legal and community services with no comparator. The primary outcomes are caregiver-reported: (i) identification of, (ii) interventions received and/or (iii) referrals received for adversity from Hub practitioners. The study also assesses child, caregiver, practitioner and system outcomes including mental health, parenting, quality of life, care experience and service linkages. Primary and secondary outcomes will be assessed by examining change in proportions/means from baseline to 6 months, from 6 to 12 months and from baseline to 12 months. Service linkages will be analysed using social network analysis. Costs of Hub implementation and a health economics analysis of unmet need wil

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. To evaluate the efficacy and harms of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors for individuals with the core features (social interaction, communication, and restrictive and repetitive behaviours) of ASD. Secondary objective This review will also assess the effects of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors on non-core features of ASD.Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Objective To determine the accuracy of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) calculator in predicting death and neurodevelopmental impairment in Australian and New Zealand infants. Design Population-based cohort study. setting Australia and New Zealand. Patients Preterm infants 22-25 completed weeks gestation. Interventions Comparison of NICHD calculator predicted rates of death and death or neurodevelopmental impairment, with actual rates recorded in the Australian and New Zealand Neonatal Network cohort. Main outcome measures Infant death and death or neurodevelopmental impairment rates. results A total of 714 infants were included in the study. Of these infants, 100 (14.0%) were <24 weeks, 389 (54.5%) male, 529 (74.1%) were singletons, 42 (5.9%) had intrauterine growth restriction, 563 (78.9%) received antenatal steroids and 625 (87.5 %) were born in a tertiary hospital. There were 288 deaths (40.3%), 75 infants (10.5%) with neurodevelopment impairment and 363 (50.8%) with death or neurodevelopmental impairment. The area under the curve (AUC) for prediction of death and the composite death or neurodevelopmental impairment by the NICHD calculator in our population was 0.65(95% CI 0.61 to 0.69) and 0.65 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.69), respectively. When stratified and compared with gestational age outcomes, the AUC did not change substantially for the outcomes investigated. The calculator was less accurate with outcome predictions at the extreme categories of predicted outcomes-underestimation of outcomes for those predicted to have the lowest risk (<20%) and overestimation for those in the highest risk category (>>80%). conclusion In our recent cohort of extremely preterm infants, the NICHD model does not accurately predict outcomes and is marginally better than gestational age based outcomes.Copyright © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved.

This report is the published product of one of a series of studies covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland commissioned by Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) Ltd. The report provides geological information about the London and the Thames Valley region to underpin the process of national geological screening set out in the UK Government’s White Paper Implementing geological disposal: a framework for the long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste (DECC, 2014). The report describes geological features relevant to the safety requirements of a geological disposal facility (GDF) for radioactive waste emplaced onshore and up to 20 km offshore at depths between 200 and 1000 m from surface. It is written for a technical audience but is intended to inform RWM in its discussions with communities interested in finding out about the potential for their area to host a GDF.

This report is the published product of one of a series of studies covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland commissioned by Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) Ltd. The report provides geological information about the East Anglia region to underpin the process of national geological screening set out in the UK’s government White Paper Implementing geological disposal: a framework for the long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste (DECC, 2014). The report describes geological features relevant to the safety requirements of a geological disposal facility (GDF) for radioactive waste emplaced onshore and up to 20 km offshore at depths between 200 and 1000 m from surface. It is written for a technical audience but is intended to inform RWM in its discussions with communities interested in finding out about the potential for their area to host a GDF.

This report is the published product of one of a series of studies covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland commissioned by Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) Ltd. The report provides geological information about the Wealden district region to underpin the process of national geological screening set out in the UK’s government White Paper Implementing geological disposal: a framework for the long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste (DECC, 2014). The report describes geological features relevant to the safety requirements of a geological disposal facility (GDF) for radioactive waste emplaced onshore and up to 20 km offshore at depths between 200 and 1000 m from surface. It is written for a technical audience but is intended to inform RWM in its discussions with communities interested in finding out about the potential for their area to host a GDF.

This report is the published product of one of a series of studies covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland commissioned by Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) Ltd. The report provides geological information about the Northern England region to underpin the process of national geological screening set out in the UK’s government White Paper Implementing geological disposal: a framework for the long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste (DECC, 2014). The report describes geological features relevant to the safety requirements of a geological disposal facility (GDF) for radioactive waste emplaced onshore and up to 20 km offshore at depths between 200 and 1000 m from surface. It is written for a technical audience but is intended to inform RWM in its discussions with communities interested in finding out about the potential for their area to host a GDF.

This report is the published product of one of a series of studies covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland commissioned by Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) Ltd. The report provides geological information about the Pennines and adjacent areas region to underpin the process of national geological screening set out in the UK’s government White Paper Implementing geological disposal: a framework for the long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste (DECC, 2014). The report describes geological features relevant to the safety requirements of a geological disposal facility (GDF) for radioactive waste emplaced onshore and up to 20 km offshore at depths between 200 and 1000 m from surface. It is written for a technical audience but is intended to inform RWM in its discussions with communities interested in finding out about the potential for their area to host a GDF.

This report is the published product of one of a series of studies covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland commissioned by Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) Ltd. The report provides geological information about the Hampshire Basin and adjoining areas region to underpin the process of national geological screening set out in the UK’s government White Paper Implementing geological disposal: a framework for the long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste (DECC, 2014). The report describes geological features relevant to the safety requirements of a geological disposal facility (GDF) for radioactive waste emplaced onshore and up to 20 km offshore at depths between 200 and 1000 m from surface. It is written for a technical audience but is intended to inform RWM in its discussions with communities interested in finding out about the potential for their area to host a GDF.

This report is the published product of one of a series of studies covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland commissioned by Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) Ltd. The report provides geological information about the South-west England region to underpin the process of national geological screening set out in the UK Government’s White Paper Implementing geological disposal: a framework for the long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste (DECC, 2014). The report describes geological features relevant to the safety requirements of a geological disposal facility (GDF) for radioactive waste emplaced onshore and up to 20 km offshore at depths between 200 and 1000 m from surface. It is written for a technical audience but is intended to inform RWM in its discussions with communities interested in finding out about the potential for their area to host a GDF.

This report is the published product of one of a series of studies covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland commissioned by Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) Ltd. The report provides geological information about Northern Ireland to underpin its process of national geological screening set out in the UK’s government White Paper Implementing geological disposal: a framework for the long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste (DECC, 2014). The report describes geological features relevant to the safety requirements of a geological disposal facility (GDF) for radioactive waste emplaced onshore and up to 20 km offshore at depths between 200 and 1000 m from surface. It is written for a technical audience but is intended to inform RWM in its discussions with communities interested in finding out about the potential for their area to host a GDF.

This report is the published product of one of a series of studies covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland commissioned by Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) Ltd. The report provides geological information about the Central England region to underpin the process of national geological screening set out in the UK Government’s White Paper Implementing geological disposal: a framework for the long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste (DECC, 2014). The report describes geological features relevant to the safety requirements of a geological disposal facility (GDF) for radioactive waste emplaced onshore and up to 20 km offshore at depths between 200 and 1000 m from surface. It is written for a technical audience but is intended to inform RWM in its discussions with communities interested in finding out about the potential for their area to host a GDF.

This report is the published product of one of a series of studies covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland commissioned by Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) Ltd. The report provides geological information about the Welsh Borderland region to underpin the process of national geological screening set out in the UK’s government White Paper Implementing geological disposal: a framework for the long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste (DECC, 2014). The report describes geological features relevant to the safety requirements of a geological disposal facility (GDF) for radioactive waste emplaced onshore and up to 20 km offshore at depths between 200 and 1000 m from surface. It is written for a technical audience but is intended to inform RWM in its discussions with communities interested in finding out about the potential for their area to host a GDF.

This report is the published product of one of a series of studies covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland commissioned by Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) Ltd. The report provides geological information about Wales to underpin the process of national geological screening set out in the UK’s government White Paper Implementing geological disposal: A framework for the long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste (DECC, 2014). The report describes geological features relevant to the safety requirements of a geological disposal facility (GDF) for radioactive waste emplaced onshore and up to 20 km offshore at depths between 200 and 1000 m from surface. It is written for a technical audience but is intended to inform RWM in its discussions with communities interested in finding out about the potential for their area to host a GDF.

This report is the published product of one of a series of studies covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland commissioned by Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) Ltd. The report provides geological information about the Eastern England region to underpin the process of national geological screening set out in the UK’s government White Paper Implementing geological disposal: a framework for the long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste (DECC, 2014). The report describes geological features relevant to the safety requirements of a geological disposal facility (GDF) for radioactive waste emplaced onshore and up to 20 km offshore at depths between 200 m and 1000 m from surface. It is written for a technical audience but is intended to inform RWM in its discussions with communities interested in finding out about the potential for their area to host a GDF.

This report is the published product of one of a series of studies covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland commissioned by Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) Ltd. The report provides geological information about the Bristol and Gloucester region to underpin the process of national geological screening set out in the UK’s government White Paper Implementing geological disposal: a framework for the longterm management of higher activity radioactive waste (DECC, 2014). The report describes geological features relevant to the safety requirements of a geological disposal facility (GDF) for radioactive waste emplaced onshore and up to 20 km offshore at depths between 200 and 1000 m from surface. It is written for a technical audience but is intended to inform RWM in its discussions with communities interested in finding out about the potential for their area to host a GDF.

Background: Compared to very low gestational age (<32 weeks, VLGA) cohorts, very low birth weight (<1500 g; VLBW) cohorts are more prone to selection bias toward small-for-gestational age (SGA) infants, which may impact upon the validity of data for benchmarking purposes. Method(s): Data from all VLGA or VLBW infants admitted in the 3 Networks between 2008 and 2011 were used. Two-thirds of each network cohort was randomly selected to develop prediction models for mortality and composite adverse outcome (CAO: mortality or cerebral injuries, chronic lung disease, severe retinopathy or necrotizing enterocolitis) and the remaining for internal validation. Areas under the ROC curves (AUC) of the models were compared. Result(s): VLBW cohort (24,335 infants) had twice more SGA infants (20.4% vs. 9.3%) than the VLGA cohort (29,180 infants) and had a higher rate of CAO (36.5% vs. 32.6%). The two models had equal prediction power for mortality and CAO (AUC 0.83), and similarly for all other cross-cohort validations (AUC 0.81-0.85). Neither model performed well for the extremes of birth weight for gestation (<1500 g and >=32 weeks, AUC 0.50-0.65; >=1500 g and <32 weeks, AUC 0.60-0.62). Conclusion(s): There was no difference in prediction power for adverse outcome between cohorting VLGA or VLBW despite substantial bias in SGA population. Either cohorting practises are suitable for international benchmarking.Copyright © 2017 The Author(s).

OBJECTIVES: To compare survival rates and age at death among very preterm infants in 10 national and regional neonatal networks. METHOD(S): A cohort study of very preterm infants, born between 24 and 29 weeks' gestation and weighing <1500 g, admitted to participating neonatal units between 2007 and 2013 in the International Network for Evaluating Outcomes of Neonates. Survival was compared by using standardized ratios (SRs) comparing survival in each network to the survival estimate of the whole population. RESULT(S): Network populations differed with respect to rates of cesarean birth, exposure to antenatal steroids and birth in nontertiary hospitals. Network SRs for survival were highest in Japan (SR: 1.10; 99% confidence interval: 1.08-1.13) and lowest in Spain (SR: 0.88; 99% confidence interval: 0.85-0.90). The overall survival differed from 78% to 93% among networks, the difference being highest at 24 weeks' gestation (range 35%-84%). Survival rates increased and differences between networks diminished with increasing gestational age (GA) (range 92%-98% at 29 weeks' gestation); yet, relative differences in survival followed a similar pattern at all GAs. The median age at death varied from 4 days to 13 days across networks. CONCLUSION(S): The network ranking of survival rates for very preterm infants remained largely unchanged as GA increased; however, survival rates showed marked variations at lower GAs. The median age at death also varied among networks. These findings warrant further assessment of the representativeness of the study populations, organization of perinatal services, national guidelines, philosophy of care at extreme GAs, and resources used for decision-making.© Copyright 2017 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

© 2017 The Author(s). Background: Compared to very low gestational age (<32 weeks, VLGA) cohorts, very low birth weight (<1500 g; VLBW) cohorts are more prone to selection bias toward small-for-gestational age (SGA) infants, which may impact upon the validity of data for benchmarking purposes. Method: Data from all VLGA or VLBW infants admitted in the 3 Networks between 2008 and 2011 were used. Two-thirds of each network cohort was randomly selected to develop prediction models for mortality and composite adverse outcome (CAO: mortality or cerebral injuries, chronic lung disease, severe retinopathy or necrotizing enterocolitis) and the remaining for internal validation. Areas under the ROC curves (AUC) of the models were compared. Results: VLBW cohort (24,335 infants) had twice more SGA infants (20.4% vs. 9.3%) than the VLGA cohort (29,180 infants) and had a higher rate of CAO (36.5% vs. 32.6%). The two models had equal prediction power for mortality and CAO (AUC 0.83), and similarly for all other cross-cohort validations (AUC 0.81-0.85). Neither model performed well for the extremes of birth weight for gestation (<1500 g and ≥32 weeks, AUC 0.50-0.65; ≥1500 g and <32 weeks, AUC 0.60-0.62). Conclusion: There was no difference in prediction power for adverse outcome between cohorting VLGA or VLBW despite substantial bias in SGA population. Either cohorting practises are suitable for international benchmarking.

A rationalized lithostratigraphy for the Great Scar Limestone Group of the southeast Askrigg Block is established. The basal Chapel House Limestone Formation, assessed from boreholes, comprises shallow-marine to supratidal carbonates that thin rapidly northwards across the Craven Fault System, onlapping a palaeotopographical high of Lower Palaeozoic strata. The formation is of late Arundian age in the Silverdale Borehole, its northernmost development. The overlying Kilnsey Formation represents a southward-thickening and upward-shoaling carbonate development on a S-facing carbonate ramp. Foraminiferal/algal assemblages suggest a late Holkerian and early Asbian age, respectively, for the uppermost parts of the lower Scaleber Force Limestone and upper Scaleber Quarry Limestone members, significantly younger than previously interpreted. The succeeding Malham Formation comprises the lower Cove Limestone and upper Gordale Limestone members. Foraminiferal/algal assemblages indicate a late Asbian age for the formation, contrasting with the Holkerian age previously attributed to the Cove Limestone. The members reflect a change from a partially shallow-water lagoon (Cove Limestone) to more open-marine shelf (Gordale Limestone), coincident with the onset of marked sea-level fluctuations and formation of palaeokarstic surfaces with palaeosoils in the latter. Facies variations along the southern flank of the Askrigg Block, including an absence of fenestral lime-mudstone in the upper part of the Cove Limestone and presence of dark grey cherty grainstone/packstone in the upper part the Gordale Limestone are related to enhanced subsidence during late Asbian movement on the Craven Fault System. This accounts for the marked thickening of both members towards the Greenhow Inlier

The southern margin of the Askrigg Block around Cracoe, North Yorkshire, shows a transition from carbonate ramp to reef-rimmed shelf margin, which, based on new foraminiferal/algal data, is now constrained to have initiated during the late Asbian. A late Holkerian to early Asbian ramp facies that included small mudmounds developed in comparatively deeper waters, in a transition zone between the proximal ramp, mudmound-free carbonates of the Scaleber Quarry Limestone Member (Kilnsey Formation) and the distal Hodderense Limestone and lower Pendleside Limestone formations of the adjacent Craven Basin. The ramp is envisaged as structurally fragmented, associated with sudden thickness and facies changes. The late Asbian to early Brigantian apron reefs and isolated reef knolls of the Cracoe Limestone Formation include massive reef core and marginal reef flank facies, the latter also including development of small mudmounds on the deeper water toes of back-reef flanks. The position of the apron/knoll reefs is constrained to the south (hangingwall) of the North Craven Fault, but it is syn-depositional displacement on the Middle Craven Fault that accounts for the thick reefal development. Subsequent inversion of this structure during the early Brigantian caused uplift and abandonment of the reefs and subsequent burial by the Bowland Shale Formation.