From social infrastructure to civic center. The school as laboratory of collaborative governance models / Du service public au centre civique. À Turin, les écoles deviennent des condensateurs sociaux d’expérimentations urbaines

In the second half of the last century, after World War II, the Italian government defined an important period of public policies and projects to build a national welfare system in order to bridge the social and cultural gaps of a country with many different territorial situations. Half a century later, the complexification of the social and economic organization, which has transformed mass society into a plural society, has brought with it a multiplication and fragmentation of spatial and social needs for which the universal welfare system appears ineffective. The role of the public administration and its relationship to communities and the third sector have changed: increasingly often, alliances are defined to build projects that are closer to different social and cultural demands. This paper will focus on processes in which public service is enriched and regenerated by the care of reference communities: we seem to recognize the premises for a new way of administering public services, in which the public and the private collaborate on an equal level. We will adopt this perspective in observing what happens inside schools, which seems particularly interesting for at least two reasons. First of all, as the symbol of a public welfare service in crisis, it is simultaneously possible to recognize a certain habit of school communities taking part in the redevelopment of this service, through actions to care for the school building and its pertinent spaces. Secondly, the school also plays the role of a territorial actor, coming out of its own enclosures to take over urban space (that is, public gardens, parks, libraries, museums, cycle workshops, etc.) with educational projects at various levels. Turin represents an interesting case study, as a city where both public policies and social practices have integrated themselves, from education to urban regeneration, through institutional actors and local communities

Anche noi possiamo prenderci cura dei parchi, Beni comuni

Le ricorrenti e recenti catastrofi dovute al cambiamento climatico, insieme agli allarmanti e crescenti dati sul consumo di suolo, potrebbero far sembrare tale tesi ormai globalmente ovvia, invece così non è. Come docenti universitari ce ne si accorge molto bene insegnando a studenti internazionali che provengono da Paesi in cui la tutela dei parchi non esiste (o esiste ma è assai meno rispettata): portano in classe violente immagini di speculazioni edilizie in aree naturalistiche di pregio nei propri Paesi d’origine, insieme a racconti di corruzione e mala gestione del potere. Una premessa a questa riflessione è perciò necessaria: problematizzare le complesse questioni legate a forme innovative di gestione dei parchi non significa né rinnegare l’idea che la pianificazione dei parchi sia di fondamentale importanza, né svalutare il lavoro che quotidianamente svolgono i soggetti istituzionalmente preposti alla conservazione e alla gestione dei parchi. L’obiettivo è, invece, quello di ragionare sull’Amministrazione condivisa dei parchi come beni comuni

Servizi ibridi e condivisi, per prendersi cura dei Beni comuni

Le fasi dell’emergenza sanitaria e della ricostruzione hanno insomma reso ancora più evidente il tema dell’Amministrazione condivisa, anche dei servizi, come beni comuni. Perché? Da un lato la condivisione è motivata dal fatto che ci è ora ancora più evidente che molti servizi, che sempre più persone percepiscono come Beni comuni, si sono trovati di fronte a sfide che non possiamo continuare a pensare che vengano affrontate solo dai responsabili pubblici. Dall’altro lato abbiamo parlato di ibridazione perché, in questa emergenza sanitaria globale come già da tempo, si è manifestata una diffusa voglia di contribuire insieme alla soluzione dei problemi, ognuno con il proprio saper fare: responsabili pubblici con ruoli tecnici e politici, soggetti privati, associazioni e gruppi informali, ma anche singoli individui

Higher 90-day mortality after surgery for hip fractures in patients with covid-19: A case–control study from a single center in italy

The mortality of hip fracture (HF) patients is increased by concomitant COVID-19; however, evidence is limited to only short follow-up. A retrospective matched case–control study was designed with the aim to report the 90-day mortality and determine the hazard ratio (HR) of concomitant HF and COVID-19 infection. Cases were patients hospitalized for HF and diagnosed with COVID-19. Controls were patients hospitalized for HF not meeting the criteria for COVID-19 diagnosis and were individually matched with each case through a case–control (1:3) matching algorithm. A total of 89 HF patients were treated during the study period, and 14 of them were diagnosed as COVID-19 positive (overall 15.7%). Patients’ demographic, clinical, and surgical characteristics were similar between case and control groups. At 90 days after surgery, 5 deaths were registered among the 14 COVID-19 cases (35.7%) and 4 among the 42 HF controls (9.5%). COVID-19-positive cases had a higher risk of mortality at 30 days (HR = 4.51; p = 0.0490) and 90 days (HR = 4.50; p = 0.025) with respect to controls. Patients with concomitant HF and COVID-19 exhibit high perioperative mortality, which reaches a plateau of nearly 30–35% after 30 to 45 days and is stable up to 90 days. The mortality risk is more than four-fold higher in patients with COVID-19

Drug resistance degree is associated with duration of ARV exposure and predicted by baseline CD4 and gender in HIV-infected patients failing first-line WHO-recommended ARV regimen: a cross sectional viral load survey of a cohort in Cameroon (Médecins Sans Frontières - Ministry of Health)

Mexico AIDS Conference 200