Roles, responsibilities and scope of practice: describing the ‘state of play’ for infection control professionals in Australia and New Zealand

Background In the past decade the policy and practice context for infection control in Australia and New Zealand has changed, with infection control professionals (ICPs) now involved in the implementation of a large number of national strategies. Little is known about the current ICP workforce and what they do in their day-to-day positions. The aim of this study was to describe the ICP workforce in Australia and New Zealand with a focus on roles, responsibilities, and scope of practice. Methods A cross-sectional design using snowball recruitment was employed. ICPs completed an anonymous web-based survey with questions on demographics; qualifications held; level of experience; workplace characteristics; and roles and responsibilities. Chi-squared tests were used to determine if any factors were associated with how often activities were undertaken. Results A total of 300 ICPs from all Australian states and territories and New Zealand participated. Most ICPs were female (94%); 53% were aged over 50, and 93% were employed in registered nursing roles. Scope of practice was diverse: all ICPs indicated they undertook a large number and variety of activities as part of their roles. Some activities were undertaken on a less frequent basis by sole practitioners and ICPs in small teams. Conclusion This survey provides useful information on the current education, experience levels and scope of practice of ICPs in Australia and New Zealand. Work is now required to establish the best mechanisms to support and potentially streamline scope of practice, so that infection-control practice is optimised.

Book Review: "Deviance Conformity and Social Control (4th Edn)" Sharyn L. Roach Anleu Sydney: Pearson, 2006

If the sociology of deviance ‘died’ a few years back, as some have claimed, the continuing significance of deviance for sociologists, in both research and teaching, might be explained in terms of a ‘resurrection’. Sharyn Roach Anleu has been spreading both the good and bad news about deviance for some years now, this being not merely the second coming of her text, but its fourth. In terms of Australian tertiary publishing, this is no small accomplishment and gives further weight to the durability of sociological concern with the sub-field of deviance...

Uropathogenic Escherichia Coli engages CD14-dependent signaling to enable bladder-macrophage-dependent control of acute urinary tract infection

Background CD14, a coreceptor for several pattern recognition receptors and a widely used monocyte/macrophage marker, plays a key role in host responses to gram-negative bacteria. Despite the central role of CD14 in the inflammatory response to lipopolysaccharide and other microbial products and in the dissemination of bacteria in some infections, the signaling networks controlled by CD14 during urinary tract infection (UTI) are unknown. Methods We used uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) infection of wild-type (WT) C57BL/6 and Cd14−/− mice and RNA sequencing to define the CD14-dependent transcriptional signature and the role of CD14 in host defense against UTI in the bladder. Results UPEC induced the upregulation of Cd14 and the monocyte/macrophage-related genes Emr1/F4/80 and Csf1r/c-fms, which was associated with lower UPEC burdens in WT mice, compared with Cd14−/− mice. Exacerbation of infection in Cd14−/− mice was associated with the absence of a 491-gene transcriptional signature in the bladder that encompassed multiple host networks not previously associated with this receptor. CD14-dependent pathways included immune cell trafficking, differential cytokine production in macrophages, and interleukin 17 signaling. Depletion of monocytes/macrophages in the bladder by administration of liposomal clodronate led to higher UPEC burdens. Conclusions This study identifies new host protective and signaling roles for CD14 in the bladder during UPEC UTI.

Duty and Control in Intermediary Copyright Liability: An Australian Perspective

In the internet age, copyright owners are increasingly looking to online intermediaries to take steps to prevent copyright infringement. Sometimes these intermediaries are closely tied to the acts of infringement; sometimes – as in the case of ISPs – they are not. In 2012, the Australian High Court decided the Roadshow Films v iiNet case, in which it held that an Australian ISP was not liable under copyright’s authorization doctrine, which asks whether the intermediary has sanctioned, approved or countenanced the infringement. The Australian Copyright Act 1968 directs a court to consider, in these situations, whether the intermediary had the power to prevent the infringement and whether it took any reasonable steps to prevent or avoid the infringement. It is generally not difficult for a court to find the power to prevent infringement – power to prevent can include an unrefined technical ability to disconnect users from the copyright source, such as an ISP terminating users’ internet accounts. In the iiNet case, the High Court eschewed this broad approach in favor of focusing on a notion of control that was influenced by principles of tort law. In tort, when a plaintiff asserts that a defendant should be liable for failing to act to prevent harm caused to the plaintiff by a third party, there is a heavy burden on the plaintiff to show that the defendant had a duty to act. The duty must be clear and specific, and will often hinge on the degree of control that the defendant was able to exercise over the third party. Control in these circumstances relates directly to control over the third party’s actions in inflicting the harm. Thus, in iiNet’s case, the control would need to be directed to the third party’s infringing use of BitTorrent; control over a person’s ability to access the internet is too imprecise. Further, when considering omissions to act, tort law differentiates between the ability to control and the ability to hinder. The ability to control may establish a duty to act, and the court will then look to small measures taken to prevent the harm to determine whether these satisfy the duty. But the ability to hinder will not suffice to establish liability in the absence of control. This chapter argues that an inquiry grounded in control as defined in tort law would provide a more principled framework for assessing the liability of passive intermediaries in copyright. In particular, it would set a higher, more stable benchmark for determining the copyright liability of passive intermediaries, based on the degree of actual, direct control that the intermediary can exercise over the infringing actions of its users. This approach would provide greater clarity and consistency than has existed to date in this area of copyright law in Australia.