Search

Background: This study aimed to provide a systematic review on the geographical distribution of Echinococcus multilocularis in definitive and intermediate hosts in the European Union (EU) and adjacent countries (AC). The relative importance of the different host species in the life-cycle of this parasite was highlighted and gaps in our knowledge regarding these hosts were identified. Methods: Six databases were searched for primary research studies published from 1900 to 2015. From a total of 2,805 identified scientific papers, 244 publications were used for meta-analyses. Results: Studies in 21 countries reported the presence of E. multilocularis in red foxes, with the following pooled prevalence (PP): low (≤ 1 %; Denmark, Slovenia and Sweden); medium (> 1 % to < 10 %; Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania and the Ukraine); and high (> 10 %; Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Liechtenstein and Switzerland). Studies from Finland, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Norway reported the absence of E. multilocularis in red foxes. However, E. multilocularis was detected in Arctic foxes from the Arctic Archipelago of Svalbard in Norway. Conclusions: Raccoon dogs (PP 2.2 %), golden jackals (PP 4.7 %) and wolves (PP 1.4 %) showed a higher E. multilocularis PP than dogs (PP 0.3 %) and cats (PP 0.5 %). High E. multilocularis PP in raccoon dogs and golden jackals correlated with high PP in foxes. For intermediate hosts (IHs), muskrats (PP 4.2 %) and arvicolids (PP 6.0 %) showed similar E. multilocularis PP as sylvatic definitive hosts (DHs), excluding foxes. Nutrias (PP 1.0 %) and murids (PP 1.1 %) could play a role in the life-cycle of E. multilocularis in areas with medium to high PP in red foxes. In areas with low PP in foxes, no other DH was found infected with E. multilocularis. When fox E. multilocularis PP was >3 %, raccoon dogs and golden jackals could play a similar role as foxes. In areas with high E. multilocularis fox PP, the wolf emerged as a potentially important DH. Dogs and cats could be irrelevant in the life-cycle of the parasite in Europe, although dogs could be important for parasite introduction into non-endemic areas. Muskrats and arvicolids are important IHs. Swine, insectivores, murids and nutrias seem to play a minor or no role in the life-cycle of the parasite within the EU and ACs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of Clinical Governance (CG) is to the pursuit of quality in health care through the integration of all the activities impacting on the patient into a single strategy. OPTIGOV (Optimizing Health Care Governance) is a methodology for the assessment of the level of implementation of CG within healthcare organizations. The aim of this paper is to explain the process underlying the development of OPTIGOV, and describe its characteristics and steps. Methods: OPTIGOV was developed in 2006 by the Institute of Hygiene of the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart and Eurogroup Consulting Alliance. The main steps of the process were: choice of areas for analysis and questionnaire development, based on a review of scientific literature; assignment of scores and weights to individual questions and areas; implementation of a software interfaceable with Microsoft Office. Results: OPTIGOV consists of: a) a hospital audit with a structured approach; b) development of an improvement operational plan. A questionnaire divided into 13 areas of analysis is used. For each area there is a form with a variable number of questions and "closed" answers. A score is assigned to each answer, area of analysis, healthcare department and unit. The single scores can be gathered for the organization as a whole. The software application allows for collation of data, calculation of scores and development of benchmarks to allow comparisons between healthcare organizations. Implementation consists of three stages: the preparation phase includes a kick off meeting, selection of interviewees and development of a survey plan. The registration phase includes hospital audits, reviewing of hospital documentation, data collection and score processing. Lastly, results are processed, inserted into a final report, and discussed in a meeting with the Hospital Board and in a final workshop. Conclusions: The OPTIGOV methodology for the evaluation of CG implementation was developed with an evidencebased approach. The ongoing adoption of OPTIGOV in several projects will put to the test its potential to realistically represent the organization status, pinpoint criticalities and transferable best practices, provide a plan for improvement, and contribute to triggering changes and pursuit of quality in health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]