Aanmerkelijk Onvoorzichtig: de ondergrens van de schuld in het verkeersstrafrecht

Door het grote gewicht dat tegenwoordig aan slachtofferbescherming wordt gehecht, zijn juristen meer in termen van gevolgen dan in termen van oorzaken gaan denken. De ondergrens van de schuld in het verkeersstrafrecht. Ook zou in verkeersstrafzaken de vraag of het slachtoffer niet zoveel aan het ontstaan van het ongeval heeft bijgedragen dat de eventuele fout van de verdachte daarbij in het niet valt, een heel gewone vraag moeten zijn, die geen ergernis oproept.Wanneer zou een betrokkene bij een verkeersongeval niet veroordeeld moeten worden als pleger van een verkeersmisdrijf (artikel 6 WVW 1994), ondanks de zeer ernstige gevolgen van het ongeval? De juridische argumenten om strafrechtelijke aansprakelijkheid af te wijzen worden gezocht in het privaatrecht. In de eerste plaats komen door de inrichting van de civielrechtelijke procedure argumenten die tegen aansprakelijkheid pleiten vanzelfsprekend ter sprake, terwijl veel strafrechters verweren niet waarderen. In de tweede plaats staat in het privaatrecht de schuldverhouding tussen veroorzaker en slachtoffer expliciet ter discussie. Het ontbreken van een eigen schuld verweer verruimt de strafrechtelijke aansprakelijkheid ten opzichte van de privaatrechtelijke. In het strafrecht spelen bewijsvermoedens een grotere rol dan vaak wordt gedacht. Zonder een expliciet verweer wordt na een geconstateerde verkeersovertreding in de bewijsmiddelen geen aandacht geschonken aan de onvoorzichtigheid, de wederrechtelijkheid, de verwijtbaarheid, de voorzienbaarheid van het ongeval en het causaal verband tussen overtreding en ongeval. Een verdachte die verweer voert loopt echter het risico dat de straf hoger uitvalt. Rechters waarderen het daarentegen als de verdachte de vermeende fout toegeeft en schuldbesef toont. Aan het privaatrecht kunnen argumenten worden ontleend die tegen een vermoeden van causaal verband pleiten. Daarnaast zou het verweer dat het ongeval vooral aan de schuld van het slachtoffer was te wijten, ook strafrechtelijk van belang moeten zijn. Het verkeersrechtelijke vertrouwensbeginsel zou zo moeten worden geinterpreteerd dat, ook als de verdachte enig verwijt treft, bezien moet worden of het slachtoffer niet zoveel aan het ontstaan van het ongeval heeft bijgedragen dat de gedraging van de verdachte daarbij in het niet valt en niet als aanmerkelijk onvoorzichtig kan worden aangemerkt

Der Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) als Zielgröße für komplexe Interventionen: erste Erfahrungen aus der PRIMUM-Pilotstudie (BMBF-Förderkennzeichen: 01GK0702)

Meeting Abstract : 10. Deutscher Kongress für Versorgungsforschung, 18. GAA-Jahrestagung. Deutsches Netzwerk Versorgungsforschung e. V. ; Gesellschaft für Arzneimittelanwendungsforschung und Arzneimittelepidemiologie e. V. 20.-22.10.2011, Köln Hintergrund: Multimedikation als Folge von Multimorbidität ist ein zentrales Problem der Hausarztpraxis und erhöht das Risiko für unangemessene Arzneimittel-Verordnungen (VO). Um die Medikation bei älteren, multimorbiden Patienten zu optimieren und zu priorisieren, wurde eine computergestützte, durch Medizinische Fachangestellte (MFA) assistierte, komplexe Intervention (checklistengestütztes Vorbereitungsgespräch sowie Überprüfung eingenommener Medikamente durch MFA, Einsatz des web-basierten ArzneimittelinformationsDienstes AiD, spezifisches Arzt-Patienten-Gespräch) entwickelt und in einer 12-monatigen Pilotstudie auf Machbarkeit getestet. Ein auf 9 Items reduzierter MAI [1] wurde eingesetzt, um dessen Eignung als potentielles primäres Outcome der Hauptstudie zu prüfen. Material und Methoden: In die Pilotstudie in 20 Hausarztpraxen mit Cluster-Randomisation auf Praxisebene in Kontrollgruppe (Regelversorgung b. empfohlenem Standard) vs. Interventionsgruppe (komplexe Intervention b. empfohlenem Standard) wurden 5 Pat./Praxis eingeschlossen (≥65 Jahre, ≥3 chron. Erkrankungen, ≥5 Dauermedikamente, MMSE ≥26, Lebenserwartung ≥6 Monate). Zur Bewertung des MAI wurden an Baseline (T0), 6 Wo. (T1) & 3 Mon. (T2) nach Intervention erhoben: VO, Diagnosen, Natrium, Kalium & Kreatinin i.S., Größe, Gewicht, Geschlecht, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) [2] durch die Hausarztpraxis; Symptome für unerwünschte Arzneimittelwirkungen im Patienten-Telefoninterview. Für den MAI wurde die Angemessenheit jeder VO in den 9 Kategorien Indikation, Effektivität, Dosierung, korrekter & praktikabler Applikationsweg, Arzneimittelwechselwirkung, Drug-disease-Interaktion, Doppelverordnung, Anwendungsdauer 3-stufig bewertet (1 = korrekt - 3 = unkorrekt) und für die Auswertung auf Patientenebene summiert. Die Bewertung erfolgte ohne Kenntnis der Gruppenzugehörigkeit. Deskriptive Statistiken und Reliabilitätsanalysen, ungewichtete Auswertung und Gewichtung n. Bregnhoj [3]. Ergebnisse: Es wurden N=100 Patienten in die Studie eingeschlossen, im Mittel 76 Jahre (Standardabweichung, SD 6; Range, R: 64-93) , 52% Frauen, durchschnittlich 9 VO/Pat. (SD 2; R 4-16), mittlerer CIRS-Score 10 (SD 4; R 0-23). Basierend auf N=851 VO (100 Pat.) zu T0 betrug der Reliabilitätskoeffizient (RK, Cronbachs Alpha) der ungewichteten 9 Items 0,70. Items 1-5 wiesen akzeptable Trennschärfen auf (0,52-0,64), die der Items 6, 7 & 9 fielen mit 0,21-0,29 niedriger aus, die des Item 8 betrug 0,06. Auf der Basis der 9 gewichteten Items fiel die interne Konsistenz des MAI erwartet höher aus (0,75). Die Reliabilitätsanalysen auf VO-Ebene zeigten einen RK von 0,67 (ungewichtet) vs. 0,75 (gewichtet), die Trennschärfen waren vergleichbar. Zur Zwischenauswertung betrug der MAI (T1-T0) in der Interventionsgruppe (5 Praxen, 24 Pat.) -0,9 (SD 5,6), in der Kontrollgruppe (7 Praxen, 35 Pat.) -0,5 (SD 4,9); die Differenz zwischen beiden Gruppen Mi–Mk -0,4 [95% Konfidenzintervall: -3,4;2,6]. Schlussfolgerung: Der MAI ist als potentielles primäres Outcome in der Hauptstudie geeignet: wenige fehlende Werte, Darstellung von Unterschieden prä-post und zwischen den Gruppen, akzeptable interne Konsistenz. Der niedrige Trennschärfekoeffizient des Items 8 weist darauf hin, dass dieses Item nicht mit dem Gesamt-Skalenwert korreliert, auch die Items 6, 7 und 9 korrelieren wesentlich schwächer mit dem Gesamt-Skalenwert als die Items 1 bis 5. Eine Wichtung z.B. der Items 2, 5, 6 und 9 könnte erwogen werden, um den Fokus der Intervention in der Hauptzielgröße angemessen abzubilden

Исследование характеристик щелевого теплообменника с развитой поверхностью теплообмена

Предложена конструкция водяного многоканального щелевого теплообменника, позволяющего отводить мощность до 750 Вт при температуре имитатора теплового потока 60°С, а также пути повышения технологичности изготовления теплообменника

Radiation dose reduction in pediatric great vessel stent computed tomography using iterative reconstruction: A phantom study

Background To study dose reduction using iterative reconstruction (IR) for pediatric great vessel stent computed tomography (CT). Methods Five different great vessel stents were separately placed in a gel-containing plastic holder within an anthropomorphic chest phantom. The stent lumen was filled with diluted contrast gel. CT acquisitions were performed at routine dose, 52% and 81% reduced dose and reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and IR. Objective image quality in terms of noise, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) as well as subjective image quality were evaluated. Results Noise, SNR and CNR were improved with IR at routine and 52% reduced dose, compared to FBP at routine dose. The lowest dose level resulted in decreased objective image quality with both FBP and IR. Subjective image quality was excellent at all dose levels. Conclusion IR resulted in improved objective image quality at routine dose and 52% reduced dose, while objective image quality deteriorated at 81% reduced dose. Subjective image quality was not affected by dose reduction

Multimorbidity's research challenges and priorities from a clinical perspective: The case of 'Mr Curran'

This is the final version. Available on open access from Taylor & Francis via the DOI in this recordOlder patients, suffering from numerous diseases and taking multiple medications are the rule rather than the exception in primary care. A manifold of medical conditions are often associated with poor outcomes, and their multiple medications raise additional risks of polypharmacy. Such patients account for most healthcare expenditures. Effective approaches are needed to manage such complex patients in primary care. This paper describes the results of a scoping exercise, including a two-day workshop with 17 professionals from six countries, experienced in general practice and primary care research as well as epidemiology, clinical pharmacology, gerontology and methodology. This was followed by a consensus process investigating the challenges and core questions for multimorbidity research in primary care from a clinical perspective and presents examples of the best research practice. Current approaches in measuring and clustering multimorbidity inform policy-makers and researchers, but research is needed to provide support in clinical decision making. Multimorbidity presents a complexity of conditions leading to individual patient's needs and demanding complex processes in clinical decision making. The identification of patterns presupposes the development of strategies on how to manage multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Interventions have to be complex and multifaceted, and their evaluation poses numerous methodological challenges in study design, outcome measurement and analysis. Overall, it can be seen that complexity is a main underlying theme. Moreover, flexible study designs, outcome parameters and evaluation strategies are needed to account for this complexity. © 2014 Informa Healthcare

Pilot study to test the feasibility of a trial design and complex intervention on PRIoritising MUltimedication in Multimorbidity in general practices (PRIMUMpilot).

Published onlineJournal ArticleThis is the final version of the article. Available from BMJ Publishing Group via the DOI in this record.OBJECTIVE: To improve medication appropriateness and adherence in elderly patients with multimorbidity, we developed a complex intervention involving general practitioners (GPs) and their healthcare assistants (HCA). In accordance with the Medical Research Council guidance on developing and evaluating complex interventions, we prepared for the main study by testing the feasibility of the intervention and study design in a cluster randomised pilot study. SETTING: 20 general practices in Hesse, Germany. PARTICIPANTS: 100 cognitively intact patients ≥65 years with ≥3 chronic conditions, ≥5 chronic prescriptions and capable of participating in telephone interviews; 94 patients completed the study. INTERVENTION: The HCA conducted a checklist-based interview with patients on medication-related problems and reconciled their medications. Assisted by a computerised decision-support system (CDSS), the GPs discussed medication intake with patients and adjusted their medication regimens. The control group continued with usual care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility of the intervention and required time were assessed for GPs, HCAs and patients using mixed methods (questionnaires, interviews and case vignettes after completion of the study). The feasibility of the study was assessed concerning success of achieving recruitment targets, balancing cluster sizes and minimising drop-out rates. Exploratory outcomes included the medication appropriateness index (MAI), quality of life, functional status and adherence-related measures. MAI was evaluated blinded to group assignment, and intra-rater/inter-rater reliability was assessed for a subsample of prescriptions. RESULTS: 10 practices were randomised and analysed per group. GPs/HCAs were satisfied with the interventions despite the time required (35/45 min/patient). In case vignettes, GPs/HCAs needed help using the CDSS. The study made no patients feel uneasy. Intra-rater/inter-rater reliability for MAI was excellent. Inclusion criteria were challenging and potentially inadequate, and should therefore be adjusted. Outcome measures on pain, functionality and self-reported adherence were unfeasible due to frequent missing values, an incorrect manual or potentially invalid results. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention and trial design were feasible. The pilot study revealed important limitations that influenced the design and conduct of the main study, thus highlighting the value of piloting complex interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN99691973; Results.Funding has been provided by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, BMBF, grant number 01GK0702

Migraine, inflammatory bowel disease and celiac disease: A Mendelian randomization study

Objective: To assess whether migraine may be genetically and/or causally associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or celiac disease. Background: Migraine has been linked to IBD and celiac disease in observational studies, but whether this link may be explained by a shared genetic basis or could be causal has not been established. The presence of a causal association could be clinically relevant, as treating one of these medical conditions might mitigate the symptoms of a causally linked condition. Methods: Linkage disequilibrium score regression and two-sample bidirectional Mendelian randomization analyses were performed using summary statistics from cohort-based genome-wide association studies of migraine (59,674 cases; 316,078 controls), IBD (25,042 cases; 34,915 controls) and celiac disease (11,812 or 4533 cases; 11,837 or 10,750 controls). Migraine with and without aura were analyzed separately, as were the two IBD subtypes Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Positive control analyses and conventional Mendelian randomization sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Migraine was not genetically correlated with IBD or celiac disease. No evidence was observed for IBD (odds ratio [OR] 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-1.02, p = 0.703) or celiac disease (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99-1.02, p = 0.912) causing migraine or migraine causing either IBD (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.96-1.22, p = 0.181) or celiac disease (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.79-1.48, p = 0.614) when all participants with migraine were analyzed jointly. There was some indication of a causal association between celiac disease and migraine with aura (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00-1.08, p = 0.045), between celiac disease and migraine without aura (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.99, p = 0.006), as well as between migraine without aura and ulcerative colitis (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.02-1.29, p = 0.025). However, the results were not significant after multiple testing correction. Conclusions: We found no evidence of a shared genetic basis or of a causal association between migraine and either IBD or celiac disease, although we obtained some indications of causal associations with migraine subtypes. Keywords: Mendelian randomization; celiac disease; gastrointestinal disease; genetic correlation; inflammatory bowel disease; migraine