Post-mortem volatiles of vertebrate tissue

Volatile emission during vertebrate decay is a complex process that is understood incompletely. It depends on many factors. The main factor is the metabolism of the microbial species present inside and on the vertebrate. In this review, we combine the results from studies on volatile organic compounds (VOCs) detected during this decay process and those on the biochemical formation of VOCs in order to improve our understanding of the decay process. Micro-organisms are the main producers of VOCs, which are by- or end-products of microbial metabolism. Many microbes are already present inside and on a vertebrate, and these can initiate microbial decay. In addition, micro-organisms from the environment colonize the cadaver. The composition of microbial communities is complex, and communities of different species interact with each other in succession. In comparison to the complexity of the decay process, the resulting volatile pattern does show some consistency. Therefore, the possibility of an existence of a time-dependent core volatile pattern, which could be used for applications in areas such as forensics or food science, is discussed. Possible microbial interactions that might alter the process of decay are highlighted

How collaborative are quality improvement collaboratives:A qualitative study in stroke care

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) continue to be widely used, yet evidence for their effectiveness is equivocal. We sought to explain what happened in Stroke 90:10, a QIC designed to improve stroke care in 24 hospitals in the North West of England. Our study drew in part on the literature on collective action and inter-organizational collaboration. This literature has been relatively neglected in evaluations of QICs, even though they are founded on principles of co-operation and sharing. METHODS: We interviewed 32 professionals in hospitals that participated in Stroke 90:10, conducted a focus group with the QIC faculty team, and reviewed purposively sampled documents including reports and newsletters. Analysis was based on a modified form of Framework Analysis, combining sensitizing constructs derived from the literature and new, empirically derived thematic categories. RESULTS: Improvements in stroke care were attributed to QIC participation by many professionals. They described how the QIC fostered a sense of community and increased attention to stroke care within their organizations. However, participants’ experiences of the QIC varied. Starting positions were different; some organizations were achieving higher levels of performance than others before the QIC began, and some had more pre-existing experience of quality improvement methods. Some participants had more to learn, others more to teach. Some evidence of free-riding was found. Benchmarking improvement was variously experienced as friendly rivalry or as time-consuming and stressful. Participants’ competitive desire to demonstrate success sometimes conflicted with collaborative aims; some experienced competing organizational pressures or saw the QIC as duplication of effort. Experiences of inter-organizational collaboration were influenced by variations in intra-organizational support. CONCLUSIONS: Collaboration is not the only mode of behavior likely to occur within a QIC. Our study revealed a mixed picture of collaboration, free-riding and competition. QICs should learn from work on the challenges of collective action; set realistic goals; account for context; ensure sufficient time and resources are made available; and carefully manage the collaborative to mitigate the risks of collaborative inertia and unhelpful competitive or anti-cooperative behaviors. Individual organizations should assess the costs and benefits of collaboration as a means of attaining quality improvement