169,853 research outputs found
Valutazione di impatto sanitario (VIS) dei termovalorizzatori.
No full textI termovalorizzatori rientrano tra gli impianti per i quali è prevista una specififa Valutazione di ImpattoSanitario (VIS), inserita nella più generale Valutazione di impatto ambientale (VIA) del nuovo impianto. LaVIA impone alle professionalità coinvolte la raccolta di informazioni preliminari (interventi previsti; effettoambientale, stato di salute della popolazione potenzialmente esposta) allo scopo di documentare il decisorerelativamente ad una stima degli effetti sanitari futuri. La VIS richiede di conseguenza l'analisi criticadella letteratura scientifica aggiornata relativa all'argomento; ciò, nell'ambito specifico dei termovalorizzatori,è spesso associato ad un ampio grado di incertezza circa l'effettiva qualità ed attendibilità dei datidisponibili in proiezione futura. Il testo qui presentato illustra le attuali disposizioni legislative relative allaconduzione della VIS, proponendo a suo completamento una messa a punto circa le attuale evidenzescientifiche degli effetti sanitari dell'esposizione alle emissioni degli impianti
Un modello organizzativo volto alla prevenzione ed al controllo dell’infezione influenzale: il caso delle “vacanze studio”
No full textUn modello organizzativo volto alla prevenzione ed al controllo dell'infezione influenzale: il caso delle vacanze studio. Atti XI Conferenza Nazionale di Sanità Pubblica “Prevenzione e Sanità Pubblica: modelli organizzativi e buone pratiche”. Napoli, 15-17 ottobre 2009
No full textCenter-related determinants of VKA anticoagulation quality: A prospective, multicenter evaluation
No full textBackground: Center-specific TTR (c-TTR) is a measure reporting the mean patient TTR within an anticoagulation clinic describing the quality of anticoagulant monitoring offered by that clinic. c-TTR has a considerable between-center variation, but its determinants are poorly understood. Objectives: We aimed at evaluating which clinical, procedural or laboratory factors could be associated with c-TTR variability in a multicenter, observational cross-sectional study over a five-year period. Patients/Methods: Data from 832,204 individual patients followed for VKA therapy in 292 Centers affiliated with the Italian Federation of Anticoagulation Clinics (FCSA) were analyzed. c-TTR was computed based on the TTR of patients followed at each Center, and a mixed linear regression model was used for a predefined set of explanatory variables. Results: The Center next-visit interval ratio (the mean number of days after a visit with an INR outside the therapeutic range, divided by the days after a visit with an INR within the therapeutic range), the Center mean patient INR and the Center laboratory performance at EQA proficiency testing were the only variables that were independently associated with c-TTR (β- coefficients -17.32, 9.67, and -0.11, respectively; r2 = 0.635). Conclusions: These findings suggest that c-TTR associates with proactive strategies aimed at keeping patients very close to their target INR with a prompt re-evaluation of those patients with under- or over-therapeutic INR
Comparison of in vitro and ex vivo antiplatelet effects of 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one and its 2-amino derivative
No full textSignorelli C. Esposizione professionale a bio-aerosol: il caso dell’allevamento suini. Igiene e Sanità Pubblica, 2010;3(S1):641
No full textCenter-Related Determinants of VKA Anticoagulation Quality: A Prospective, Multicenter Evaluation
No full textBackground: Center-specific TTR (c-TTR) is a measure reporting the mean patient TTR within an anticoagulation clinic describing the quality of anticoagulant monitoring offered by that clinic. c-TTR has a considerable between-center variation, but its determinants are poorly understood. Objectives: We aimed at evaluating which clinical, procedural or laboratory factors could be associated with c-TTR variability in a multicenter, observational cross-sectional study over a five-year period. Patients/Methods: Data from 832,204 individual patients followed for VKA therapy in 292 Centers affiliated with the Italian Federation of Anticoagulation Clinics (FCSA) were analyzed. c-TTR was computed based on the TTR of patients followed at each Center, and a mixed linear regression model was used for a predefined set of explanatory variables. Results: The Center next-visit interval ratio (the mean number of days after a visit with an INR outside the therapeutic range, divided by the days after a visit with an INR within the therapeutic range), the Center mean patient INR and the Center laboratory performance at EQA proficiency testing were the only variables that were independently associated with c-TTR (β- coefficients -17.32, 9.67, and -0.11, respectively; r2 = 0.635). Conclusions: These findings suggest that c-TTR associates with proactive strategies aimed at keeping patients very close to their target INR with a prompt re-evaluation of those patients with under- or over-therapeutic INR. © 2015 Tosetto et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited
- …
