The Bobath Clinical Reasoning Framework: A systems science approach to the complexity of neurodevelopmental conditions, including cerebral palsy

The current recommended developmental Bobath practice within the Bobath Clinical Reasoning Framework (BCRF) can be conceptualized using the lens of systems science, thereby providing a holistic perspective on the interrelatedness and interconnectedness of the variables associated with childhood-onset disability. The BCRF is defined as an in-depth clinical reasoning framework that can be applied to help understand the relationships between the domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, how those domains can be influenced, and how they impact each other. The BCRF is a transdisciplinary observational system and practical reasoning approach that results in an intervention plan. This provides a holistic understanding of the complexity of situations associated with disorders such as cerebral palsy (CP) and the basis for the lifelong management and habilitation of people living with neurological disorders. The clinical reasoning used by the BCRF draws on the important contextual factors of the individual and their social environment, primarily the family unit. It is rooted in an understanding of the interrelationships between typical and atypical development, pathophysiology (sensorimotor, cognitive, behavioural), and neuroscience, and the impact of these body structure and function constructs on activity and participation. The systems science model integral to the BCRF is a useful way forward in understanding and responding to the complexity of CP, the overarching goal being to optimize the lived experience of any individual in any context

Global patient outcomes after elective surgery: prospective cohort study in 27 low-, middle- and high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: As global initiatives increase patient access to surgical treatments, there remains a need to understand the adverse effects of surgery and define appropriate levels of perioperative care. METHODS: We designed a prospective international 7-day cohort study of outcomes following elective adult inpatient surgery in 27 countries. The primary outcome was in-hospital complications. Secondary outcomes were death following a complication (failure to rescue) and death in hospital. Process measures were admission to critical care immediately after surgery or to treat a complication and duration of hospital stay. A single definition of critical care was used for all countries. RESULTS: A total of 474 hospitals in 19 high-, 7 middle- and 1 low-income country were included in the primary analysis. Data included 44 814 patients with a median hospital stay of 4 (range 2-7) days. A total of 7508 patients (16.8%) developed one or more postoperative complication and 207 died (0.5%). The overall mortality among patients who developed complications was 2.8%. Mortality following complications ranged from 2.4% for pulmonary embolism to 43.9% for cardiac arrest. A total of 4360 (9.7%) patients were admitted to a critical care unit as routine immediately after surgery, of whom 2198 (50.4%) developed a complication, with 105 (2.4%) deaths. A total of 1233 patients (16.4%) were admitted to a critical care unit to treat complications, with 119 (9.7%) deaths. Despite lower baseline risk, outcomes were similar in low- and middle-income compared with high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Poor patient outcomes are common after inpatient surgery. Global initiatives to increase access to surgical treatments should also address the need for safe perioperative care. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN5181700

Kuluttajabarometri maakunnittain 2000, 2. neljännes

Suomen virallinen tilasto (SVT

Use of failure-to-rescue to identify international variation in postoperative care in low-, middle- and high-income countries: a 7-day cohort study of elective surgery

This was an investigator-initiated study funded by Nestle Health Sciences through an unrestricted research grant and by a National Institute for Health Research (UK) Professorship held by R.P. The study was sponsored by Queen Mary University of London