Report on the Condition of Education 2023. NCES 2023-144

The "Report on the Condition of Education" is a congressionally mandated annual report from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Using the most recent data available (at the time this report was written) from NCES and other sources, the report contains key indicators on the condition of education in the United States at all levels, from prekindergarten through postsecondary, as well as labor force outcomes and international comparisons. There are core indicators that are updated every year and spotlight indicators that provide in-depth analyses on topics of interest to education agencies, policymakers, researchers, and the public. At the broadest level, the Condition of Education Indicator System is organized into five sections: family characteristics;preprimary, elementary, and secondary education;postsecondary education;population characteristics and economic outcomes;and international comparisons. The Report on the "Condition of Education 2023" encompasses key findings from the Condition of Education Indicator System. The full contents of the Indicator System can be accessed online through the website or by downloading PDFs for the individual indicators. [For "The Condition of Education 2023": At a Glance, see ED628291. For the "Report on the Condition of Education 2022. NCES 2022-144," see ED619870.]

Report on the Condition of Education 2022. NCES 2022-144

The "Report on the Condition of Education" is a congressionally mandated annual report from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Using the most recent data available (at the time this report was written) from NCES and other sources, the report contains key indicators on the condition of education in the United States at all levels, from prekindergarten through postsecondary, as well as labor force outcomes and international comparisons. There are core indicators that are updated every year and spotlight indicators that provide in-depth analyses on topics of interest to education systems, policymakers, researchers, and the public. At the broadest level, the Condition of Education Indicator System is organized into five sections: family characteristics, preprimary, elementary, and secondary education, postsecondary education, population characteristics and economic outcomes, and international comparisons. The "Report on the Condition of Education" 2022 encompasses key findings from the Condition of Education Indicator System. The Indicator System for 2022 presents 88 indicators, including the 23 indicators on crime and safety topics, and can be accessed online through the website or by downloading PDFs for the individual indicators. [For "'The Condition of Education 2022': At a Glance," see ED619873. For the "Report on the Condition of Education 2021. NCES 2021-144," see ED612942.]

Report on the Condition of Education 2021. NCES 2021-144

The "Condition of Education" is an annual report mandated by the U.S. Congress that summarizes the latest data on education in the United States. This report uses data from across the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and from other sources and is designed to help policymakers and the public monitor educational progress. This year's report includes 86 indicators on topics ranging from prekindergarten through postsecondary education, as well as labor force outcomes and international comparisons. Fifty-five indicators were updated this year, including 17 indicators on school crime and safety. For the 2021 edition of the report, most data were collected prior to 2020, either during the 2018-19 academic year or in fall 2019. Therefore, with some exceptions, this year's report presents findings from prior to COVID-19. [For "The Condition of Education 2020. NCES 2020-144," see ED605216.]

Successful conduct of an acute stroke clinical trial during COVID.

Most clinical research stopped during COVID due to possible impact on data quality and personnel safety. We aimed to assess the impact of COVID on acute stroke clinical trial conduct at sites that continued to enroll patients during the pandemic. BEST-MSU is an ongoing study of Mobile Stroke Units (MSU) vs standard management of tPA-eligible acute stroke patients in the pre-hospital setting. MSU personnel include a vascular neurologist via telemedicine, and a nurse, CT technologist, paramedics and emergency medicine technicians on-board. During COVID, consent, 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and EQ5D were obtained by phone instead of in-person, but other aspects of management were similar to the pre-COVID period. We compared patient demographics, study metrics, and infection of study personnel during intra- vs pre-COVID eras. Five of 6 BEST-MSU sites continued to enroll during COVID. There were no differences in intra- (n = 57) vs pre- (n = 869) COVID enrolled tPA eligible patients' age, sex, race (38.6% vs 38.0% Black), ethnicity (15.8% vs 18.6% Hispanic), or NIHSS (median 11 vs 9). The percent of screened patients enrolled and adjudicated tPA eligible declined from 13.6% to 6.6% (p < .001); study enrollment correlated with local stay-at-home and reopening orders. There were no differences in alert to MSU arrival or arrival to tPA times, but MSU on-scene time was 5 min longer (p = .01). There were no differences in ED door to CT, tPA treatment or thrombectomy puncture times, hospital length of stay, discharge disposition, or remote vs in-person 90-day mRS or EQ5D. One MSU nurse tested positive but did not require hospitalization. Clinical research in the pre-hospital setting can be carried out accurately and safely during a pandemic. tPA eligibility rates declined, but otherwise there were no differences in patient demographics, deterioration of study processes, or serious infection of study staff. Trial registration: NCT02190500.

A multi-institutional assessment of COVID-19-related risk in radiation oncology.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has presented challenges to delivering safe and timely care for cancer patients. The oncology community has undertaken substantial workflow adaptations to reduce transmission risk for patients and providers. While various control measureshave been proposed and implemented, little is known about their impact on safety of the radiation oncology workflow and potential for transmission. The objective of this study was to assess potential safety impacts of control measures employed during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A multi-institutional study was undertaken to assess the risks of pandemic-associated workflow adaptations using failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA). Failure modes were identified and scored using FMEA formalism. FMEA scores were used to identify highest-risk aspects of the radiation therapy process. The impact of control measures on overall risk was quantified. Agreement among institutions was evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty three failure modes and 22 control measures were identified. Control measures resulted in risk score reductions for 22 of the failure modes, with the largest reductions from screening of patients and staff, requiring use of masks, and regular cleaning of patient areas. The median risk score for all failure modes was reduced from 280 to 168. There was high institutional agreement for 90.3% of failure modes but only 47% of control measures. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-related risks are similar across oncology practices in this study. While control measures can reducerisk, their use varied. The effectiveness of control measures on risk may guide selection of the highest-impact workflow adaptions to ensure safe care in oncology.