Elicitation of expert knowledge on controlling Salmonella in the pork chain

Salmonella is one of the most important risks for food safety, and pork is one of the sources of human salmonellosis. A chain approach is essential to reduce Salmonella in pork products. A survey was carried out among Dutch and Danish experts in the field of Salmonella to evaluate the entire pork supply chain. The aims of the survey were to determine and rank possible management interventions (such as adjusted or new procedures, technical adjustments and control measures), and to estimate the details of the course of infection and contamination. An additional objective was to compare the opinions of experts from different countries and different backgrounds. The two stages in which it was expected that management interventions to improving food safety with respect to Salmonella in pork would be most effective were the the finishing stage (by preventing the spread of Salmonella within the farm) and the slaughtering stage (by preventing cross-contamination). The differences in the opinions of respondents from different backgrounds were mainly reflected by the relative importance they attached to the specific management interventions. For instance, the Danish respondents attached more importance to the purchase of Salmonella-free piglets in the finishing stage and to logistic slaughter. Respondents with a research background seemed to attach most importance to interventions that were also presented in recent literature, such as feeding non-heated grain to finishing pigs. For issues in which multiple stages of a supply chain are involved, a solid basic knowledge about the conditions per stage with respect to the issue is necessary

Health care for the world's poorest: Is voluntary (private) health insurance an option?

Poverty reduction, Hunger, Health care financing, Poor Services for, Government spending policy, Public-private partnership,

Reviewing the review process : examining decision-making in practice

A national multi-disciplinary audit showed variation in SLT practice on the decision to review pre-school children or place them on waiting lists following initial assessment. Audit evidence suggests some reasons for these differences and contributing factors are illustrated by case history examples. Current health-care policies encourage practitioners to make decision-making transparent to consumers but this process is problematic if there is a lack of evidence to support principled choice. An outline is presented to enable therapists to gather their own evidence for review outcomes in daily practice