A922 Sequential measurement of 1 hour creatinine clearance (1-CRCL) in critically ill patients at risk of acute kidney injury (AKI)

Meeting abstrac

Reviewing the use of resilience concepts in forest sciences

Purpose of the review Resilience is a key concept to deal with an uncertain future in forestry. In recent years, it has received increasing attention from both research and practice. However, a common understanding of what resilience means in a forestry context, and how to operationalise it is lacking. Here, we conducted a systematic review of the recent forest science literature on resilience in the forestry context, synthesising how resilience is defined and assessed. Recent findings Based on a detailed review of 255 studies, we analysed how the concepts of engineering resilience, ecological resilience, and social-ecological resilience are used in forest sciences. A clear majority of the studies applied the concept of engineering resilience, quantifying resilience as the recovery time after a disturbance. The two most used indicators for engineering resilience were basal area increment and vegetation cover, whereas ecological resilience studies frequently focus on vegetation cover and tree density. In contrast, important social-ecological resilience indicators used in the literature are socio-economic diversity and stock of natural resources. In the context of global change, we expected an increase in studies adopting the more holistic social-ecological resilience concept, but this was not the observed trend. Summary Our analysis points to the nestedness of these three resilience concepts, suggesting that they are complementary rather than contradictory. It also means that the variety of resilience approaches does not need to be an obstacle for operationalisation of the concept. We provide guidance for choosing the most suitable resilience concept and indicators based on the management, disturbance and application context

The Methodological Challenges Related to Assess the Outcomes of Knowledge Management Initiatives: The Case of Communities of Practice

Part 8: Knowledge Management and Information SharingInternational audienceIn any organizational project where the use of limited resources represents a challenge, it’s necessary to assess the outcomes generated. The methodological approach on how to assess outcomes reveals many questions, namely: What is the best way to do so? What dimensions to assess? From what criteria? How to estimate them? In the case of communities of practice (CoP), these questions become accurate. Indeed, in the case of Communities of Practice, the participants represent the cornerstone of the project because there are the ones who generate knowledge. So to assess outcomes generated by CoP within an organization, it’s necessary to identify an adapted methodological frame which will allow to take into account the critical aspects of the CoP and the user perspective. Our proposal aims to present a hybrid path (qualitative-quantitative) in order to minimize the limits and uplift advantages related to both approaches. The addition of these two approaches must generate a more stronger one and a better reliability of concept. For that purpose, the structure of the article concerns the following aspects: the context of knowledge management initiatives and particularly communities of practice; notions of assessment and outcomes; the current methodologies used to assess the outcomes of the CoP as well as their limits; the criteria to be respected for the choice as a strong methodology; the choice of a new approach (qualitative-quantitative) and its future application in the CoP

Comparison of outcomes between people with and without central cord syndrome

STUDY DESIGN Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE Central cord syndrome (CCS) is reported to have better outcomes than other cervical lesions, especially for ambulation and bladder recovery. However, a formal comparison between patients with CCS and other incomplete cervical spinal cord injuries (iCSCI) is lacking. Aim of the study is to investigate the neurological and functional outcomes in patients with or without CCS. SETTING European Multicenter Study. METHODS Data following SCI were derived from the European Multicenter Study about Spinal Cord Injury Database. CCS was diagnosed based on a difference of at least ten points of motor score in favour of the lower extremities. Patients were evaluated at 30 days, 6 months and 1 year from injury. The neurological and functional data were collected at each time point based on the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord injury (ISNSCI) and Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM). Patients were selected with a matching procedure based on lesion severity, neurological level of injury (NLI) and age. Evaluation of the outcomes was performed by means of two-way Anova for repeated measures. RESULTS The matching produced 110 comparable dyads. At all time points, upper extremity motor scores remained lower than lower extremity motor scores in CCS compared with iCSCI. With regard to daily life independence, both cohorts achieved comparable improvements in self-care sub-scores between T0 and T2 (6.6 ± 6.5 in CCS vs 8.2 ± 6.9 in iCSCI, p = 0.15) but this sub-score was significantly lower in CCS compared with iCSCI (3.6 ± 5.2 in CCS vs 7.3 ± 7.0 in iCSCI at T0, 13.7 ± 6.2 vs 16.5 ± 5.7 at T2), while the other sub-scores were comparable. CONCLUSIONS In contrast to previous reports, people with CCS have poorer outcomes of self-care ability compared with iCSCI