Municipal Representatives’ Accounts of Decision-Making Practices during Geriatric Case Conferences

This article addresses questions of elucidation in talk-in-interaction. How do social actors give accounts of what they are doing? To what degree do actors sustain a taken-for-granted level of reasoning? The analysis is based upon naturally occurring data consisting of a corpus of audio recorded case conferences at various geriatric wards in Danish hospitals. The article elaborates one of the important insights of Harold Garfinkel regarding the relationship between discourse and social interaction: as a general characteristic, people tend to treat their fellow interlocutors’ conversational contributions as adequate for-all-practical-purposes. Specifically, the article investigates how Danish municipal representatives account for their decisions about whether or not senior citizens are to be referred to residential homes. This practice, I demonstrate, is characterized by non-explicitness with regards to rules and regulations. Instead, municipal representatives make use of developmental discourse: a worsened condition is used to justify a referral to a residential home. On the other hand, an improved condition is used to justify that an elderly citizen is not referred to a residential home

”Leder! Er du relationskompetent?”

Begrebet relationskompetence er et allestedsnærværende begreb i ledelseskontekst. Der mangler imidlertid videnskabelige bidrag, der præciserer, hvad kompetencen dækker over, og hvordan den udfolder sig i praksis. Denne artikel har til formål at kvalificere og definere begrebet relationskompetence teoretisk og empirisk. Vi fokuserer særligt på samtalen som den mindste analyseenhed, hvor relationskompetencen har sit udtryk, gør indtryk og møder sine udfordringer. I artiklen vil den teoretiske kvalificering derfor blive efterfulgt af en empirisk analyse af, hvordan elementer af relationskompetence kan udspille sig i situeret samtalepraksis mellem en leder og medarbejder

Diagnosis trajectories of prior multi-morbidity predict sepsis mortality

Sepsis affects millions of people every year, many of whom will die. In contrast to current survival prediction models for sepsis patients that primarily are based on data from within-admission clinical measurements (e.g. vital parameters and blood values), we aim for using the full disease history to predict sepsis mortality. We benefit from data in electronic medical records covering all hospital encounters in Denmark from 1996 to 2014. This data set included 6.6 million patients of whom almost 120,000 were diagnosed with the ICD-10 code: A41 ‘Other sepsis’. Interestingly, patients following recurrent trajectories of time-ordered co-morbidities had significantly increased sepsis mortality compared to those who did not follow a trajectory. We identified trajectories which significantly altered sepsis mortality, and found three major starting points in a combined temporal sepsis network: Alcohol abuse, Diabetes and Cardio-vascular diagnoses. Many cancers also increased sepsis mortality. Using the trajectory based stratification model we explain contradictory reports in relation to diabetes that recently have appeared in the literature. Finally, we compared the predictive power using 18.5 years of disease history to scoring based on within-admission clinical measurements emphasizing the value of long term data in novel patient scores that combine the two types of data

Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429):porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS)

Abstract Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) has been assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on the eligibility of PRRS to be listed, Article 9 for the categorisation of PRRS according to disease prevention and control rules as in Annex IV and Article 8 on the list of animal species related to PRRS. The assessment has been performed following a methodology composed of information collection and compilation, expert judgement on each criterion at individual and, if no consensus was reached before, also at collective level. The output is composed of the categorical answer, and for the questions where no consensus was reached, the different supporting views are reported. Details on the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. According to the assessment performed, PRRS can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention as laid down in Article 5(3) of the AHL. The disease would comply with the criteria as in Sections 4 and 5 of Annex IV of the AHL, for the application of the disease prevention and control rules referred to in points (d) and (e) of Article 9(1). The animal species to be listed for PRRS according to Article 8(3) criteria are domestic pigs and wild boar

Assessment of listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law (Regulation (EU) No 2016/429):Ebola virus disease

Abstract Koi herpes virus (KHV) disease has been assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on the eligibility of KHV disease to be listed, Article 9 for the categorisation of KHV disease according to disease prevention and control rules as in Annex IV and Article 8 on the list of animal species related to KHV disease. The assessment has been performed following a methodology composed of information collection and compilation, expert judgement on each criterion at individual and, if no consensus was reached before, also at collective level. The output is composed of the categorical answer, and for the questions where no consensus was reached, the different supporting views are reported. Details on the methodology used for this assessment are explained in a separate opinion. According to the assessment performed, it is inconclusive whether KHV disease can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention as laid down in Article 5(3) of the AHL because there was no full consensus on the criterion 5 A(v). Consequently, the assessment on compliance of KHV disease with the criteria as in Annex IV of the AHL, for the application of the disease prevention and control rules referred to in Article 9(1) is also inconclusive, as well as which animal species can be considered to be listed for KHV disease according to Article 8(3) of the AHL