ecent natural disasters in the United States, namely Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, left disturbing images in the minds of many. Media outlets across the world broadcast reports illustrating the disparities between those who were able to successfully evacuate following these disasters and those who could not. Those who were left behind were segments of American society that historically have experienced social inequities, including low-income individuals, the disabled, the elderly, and non-English speakers.These events highlighted the issue of social equity in the provision of emergency management services. For a nation that had allocated significant resources to preparing an effective response to disasters since 9/11, the United States was remarkably unprepared to respond quickly to these emergencies. The problem was particularly acute for local governments, which are the first to respond during an emergency. Following Frederickson's contention that "all important matters of social equity are local, in the sense of consequences" (2005, 35), this study uses data from 31 localities across the United States to examine whether (and how) county and city governments consider vulnerable populations in the development of their emergency operations plans (EOPs), which guide their response efforts to disasters. The analysis suggests that much work remains to be done to protect these groups during and after local emergencies. Social Vulnerability and Social EquityThose who are subject to the impact of disasters often are conceptualized as "victims," but there are considerable differences within this seemingly homogenous group (Fordham 1999). Scholars have acknowledged that risk and vulnerability are not indiscriminately distributed in disasters, nor are preexisting systems of stratification eliminated (Couch and Kroll-Smith 1985;Morrow 1997;Fordham 1999). During the early 1990s, social scientists began examining issues of vulnerability. Vulnerability, in the disaster context, is the capacity of a person or group to "anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from the impact of a natural hazard" (Blaikie et al. 1994, 9). Various scholars have found that vulnerability may be increased due to factors such as a person's age, gender, social class, disability status, race, and ethnicity (see for

To evaluate the status of UK undergraduate urology teaching against the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Undergraduate Syllabus for Urology. Secondary objectives included evaluating the type and quantity of teaching provided, the reported performance rate of General Medical Council (GMC)-mandated urological procedures, and the proportion of undergraduates considering urology as a career. Subjects and MethodsThe uroLogical tEAching in bRitish medical schools Nationally (LEARN) study was a national multicentre cross-sectional evaluation. Year 2 to Year 5 medical students and Foundation Year (FY) 1 doctors were invited to complete a survey between 3 October and 20 December 2020, retrospectively assessing the urology teaching received to date. Results are reported according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). ResultsIn all, 7063/8346 (84.6%) responses from all 39 UK medical schools were included; 1127/7063 (16.0%) were from FY1 doctors who reported that the most frequently taught topics in undergraduate training were on urinary tract infection (96.5%), acute kidney injury (95.9%) and haematuria (94.4%). The most infrequently taught topics were male urinary incontinence (59.4%), male infertility (52.4%) and erectile dysfunction (43.8%). Male and female catheterisation on patients as undergraduates was performed by 92.1% and 73.0% of FY1 doctors respectively, and 16.9% had considered a career in urology. Theory-based teaching was mainly prevalent in the early years of medical school, with clinical skills teaching, and

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract