Massive transfusion protocol (MTP) is used to resuscitate patients in hemorrhagic shock. Our goal was to review MTP use in the elderly. All trauma patients who required activation of MTP at an urban Level I trauma center from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013 were reviewed retrospectively. Elderly was defined as age ≥ 60 years. Sixty-six patients had MTP activated: 52 non-elderly (NE) and 14 elderly (E). There were no statistically significant differences between the two cohorts for gender, injury severity score, head abbreviated injury scale, emergency department Glasgow Coma Scale, initial hematocrit, intensive care unit length of stay, or hospital length of stay. Mean age for NE was 35 years and 73 years for E ( P < 0.01). Less than half (43%) of E patients with activation of MTP received 10 or more units of blood products compared with 69 per cent of the NE ( P = 0.07). Mortality rates were similar in the NE and the E (53% vs 50%, P = 0.80). After multivariate analysis with Glasgow Coma Scale, injury severity score, and blunt versus penetrating trauma, elderly age was not a predictor of mortality after MTP ( P = 0.35). When MTP is activated, survival to discharge in elderly trauma patients is comparable to younger patients.

How do postgraduate researchers (PGRs) see themselves at the start of their PhD journey?  There is a duality of identity or even a triality when it comes to PGRs, since they exist in a space that is simultaneously researcher, student, and often ‘teacher’ in the broad sense of supporting other students in their learning.  This report draws on data from a source originally not intended to be one: personal pie charts of identity. The activity was originally conceived as a warmer or discussion prompt for ensuing focus groups (four separate groups all completing a Teaching, Learning and Assessment strand of the mandatory elements of their PhDs). However, the pie charts themselves provided surprising insights. The pie charts presented here show considerable variance in the ways they see themselves within the academic community and raise issues about the implications for them as they exist and traverse the spaces within and between these multiple identities.

No abstract

No abstract

Within the last decade, there has been a steady growth of literature discussing the benefits of internationalising curricula, strategies for making curricula more international and the impact this can have on students’ experience during their time at university and beyond in the world of work. ‘[I]nternationalisation of the curriculum seeks on the one hand to adapt course syllabi as well as teaching and assessment methods to the needs of students who come together from all over the world, bringing with them a plethora of views, cultures, and experiences with learning and teaching; on the other hand, the globalised job market and global political and cultural interactions demand a new style of Higher Education’ (University of Essex, 2012, p.7). The latter definition of internationalising the curriculum thus has clear connections to the argument for decolonising the curriculum, which has been gaining momentum within the critical sphere. Yet the definition for decolonisation curricula continues to be debated. While the internationalising and decolonising of curricula both call for a review of course content and delivery in light of the diverse body of students in our classrooms, I have found there to be at times a slight hesitancy among academics towards employing the phrase ‘decolonising the curriculum’ and fully engaging with conversations around this topic.