Search

This playbook contains resources that can be used by individual instructors to support putting student care into action or by institutions seeking guidance for incorporating caring for students into their campus strategy and instructional development programming. While the impetus for this playbook was the COVID-19 pandemic, the information and resources provided represent high standards of student support regardless of the environment. This playbook provides detailed recommendations broken out into six sections. These recommendations include: (1) Reimagine your syllabus content; (2) Review and revise your course content; (3) Assess your students with care; (4) Develop and enact a communication plan; (5) Integrate institutional supports; and (6) Take time for self-care. Each of these Six Recommendations for Caring for Students provides concrete strategies and resources to support instructors in operationalizing equity-focused, inclusive teaching strategies that put student care into practice by acknowledging student challenges while identifying student assets. [For the companion playbook, "Caring for Students Playbook: Getting Started with Key Terms, Challenges, and Approaches," see ED613432.]

This resource serves as a companion piece to the "Caring for Students Playbook: Six Recommendations for Caring for Students" (ED613431) and provides a foundation for the approaches and methods offered therein. The content offered in this playbook begins by setting the groundwork for rooting instruction in diversity, equity, and inclusion before focusing on the challenges students are experiencing as they pursue their education in our current climate. It concludes with offering approaches that support engaging culture, acknowledging trauma, and meeting the needs of all learners.

Today, as educators are transitioning into a new phase of planning for an uncertain summer and fall, they can be more thoughtful about how to deliver high quality online learning. On the positive side, online delivery as an instructional modality is not new. In fact, many colleges and universities have been developing and delivering successful online programs for years. However, despite the growth in online learning, research on student, faculty, and institutional readiness for online learning makes it clear that educators and institutions need more help understanding how to effectively design, develop, and deliver high-quality instruction online. This need is greatest for educators at institutions serving low-income students, first-generation students, and students of color who will likely be disproportionately affected by the current crisis because they lack access to needed resources and technology. This playbook is designed to serve as a concise guide in addressing faculty needs for online course design, teaching, and continuous improvement. This guide will provide teachers with the information they need to get started (and keep going!) at any level, along with resources for more in-depth information or assistance. [This playbook is a collaboration between the Online Learning Consortium (OLC), the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), and the Every Learner Everywhere Network.]

INTRODUCTION: The emergence of the novel respiratory SARS-CoV-2 and subsequent COVID-19 pandemic have required rapid assimilation of population-level data to understand and control the spread of infection in the general and vulnerable populations. Rapid analyses are needed to inform policy development and target interventions to at-risk groups to prevent serious health outcomes. We aim to provide an accessible research platform to determine demographic, socioeconomic and clinical risk factors for infection, morbidity and mortality of COVID-19, to measure the impact of COVID-19 on healthcare utilisation and long-term health, and to enable the evaluation of natural experiments of policy interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two privacy-protecting population-level cohorts have been created and derived from multisourced demographic and healthcare data. The C20 cohort consists of 3.2 million people in Wales on the 1 January 2020 with follow-up until 31 May 2020. The complete cohort dataset will be updated monthly with some individual datasets available daily. The C16 cohort consists of 3 million people in Wales on the 1 January 2016 with follow-up to 31 December 2019. C16 is designed as a counterfactual cohort to provide contextual comparative population data on disease, health service utilisation and mortality. Study outcomes will: (a) characterise the epidemiology of COVID-19, (b) assess socioeconomic and demographic influences on infection and outcomes, (c) measure the impact of COVID-19 on short -term and longer-term population outcomes and (d) undertake studies on the transmission and spatial spread of infection. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Secure Anonymised Information Linkage-independent Information Governance Review Panel has approved this study. The study findings will be presented to policy groups, public meetings, national and international conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Objectives To investigate concussion injury rates, the likelihood of sustaining concussion relative to the number of rugby union matches and the risk of subsequent injury following concussion. Methods A four-season (2012/2013–2015/2016) prospective cohort study of injuries in professional level (club and international) rugby union. Incidence (injuries/1000 player-match-hours), severity (days lost per injury) and number of professional matches conferring a large risk of concussion were determined. The risk of injury following concussion was assessed using a survival model. Results Concussion incidence increased from 7.9 (95% CI 5.1 to 11.7) to 21.5 injuries/1000 player-match-hours (95% CI 16.4 to 27.6) over the four seasons for combined club and international rugby union. Concussion severity was unchanged over time (median: 9 days). Players were at a greater risk of sustaining a concussion than not after an exposure of 25 matches (95% CI 19 to 32). Injury risk (any injury) was 38% greater (HR 1.38; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.56) following concussion than after a non-concussive injury. Injuries to the head and neck (HR 1.34; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.70), upper limb (HR 1.59; 95% CI 1.19 to 2.12), pelvic region (HR 2.07; 95% CI 1.18 to 3.65) and the lower limb (HR 1.60; 95% CI 1.21 to 2.10) were more likely following concussion than after a non-concussive injury. Conclusion Concussion incidence increased, while severity remained unchanged, during the 4 years of this study. Playing more than 25 matches in the 2015/2016 season meant that sustaining concussion was more likely than not sustaining concussion. The 38% greater injury risk after concussive injury (compared with non-concussive injury) suggests return to play protocols warrant investigation.

Background Little is known regarding variations in preoperative treatment and practice for rectal cancer (RC) on an international level, yet practice variation may result in differences in recurrence and survival rates. Methods One hundred seventy-three international colorectal centers were invited to participate in a survey of preoperative management of rectal cancer. Results One hundred twenty-three (71%) responded, with a majority of respondents from North America, Europe, and Asia. Ninety-three percent have more than 5 years' experience with rectal cancer surgery. Fifty-five percent use CT scan, 35% MRI, 29% ERUS, 12% digital rectal examination and 1% PET scan in all RC cases. Seventyfour percent consider threatened circumferential margin (CRM) an indication for neoadjuvant treatment. Ninety-two percent prefer 5-FU-based long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT). A significant difference in practice exists between the US and non-US surgeons: poor histological differentiation as an indication for CRT (25% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.008), CRT for stage II and III rectal cancer (92% vs. 43%, p = 0.0001), MRI for all RC patients (20% vs. 42%, p = 0.03), and ERUS for all RC patients (43% vs. 21%, p = 0.01). Multidisciplinary team meetings significantly influence decisions for MRI (RR = 3.62), neoadjuvant treatment (threatened CRM, RR = 5.67, stage II III RR = 2.98), quality of pathology report (RR = 4.85), and sphincter-saving surgery (RR = 3.81). Conclusions There was little consensus on staging, neoadjuvant treatment, and preoperative management of rectal cancer. Regular multidisciplinary team meetings influence decisions about neoadjuvant treatment and staging methods.