How Were Conflicts of Interest Handled?

Conflicts of interest were potentially great but they were minimized by the great conviction from both Doctors and Health Ministry that something had to be done to improve data on perinatal health. To decrease the number of hospitals where deliveries took place, to concentrate doctors, nurses and equipment, to define staff and to acquire equipment and to train nurses and paediatricians was the way. One the point of view of cost-effectiveness, centralization of expensive technologies, and development of expertise concentrating cases in a same centre - Surgery, VLBW, etc- and lowering mortality rates and get better outcomes were clear health gains. In 1989 after the political decision of closing small maternities the committee return to villages and cities to explain to political local power and people, the decision, which kind of care they will have in the future, why and expected gains. Level I hospitals and Health Centers stop to have deliveries; Health Centers were given a great responsibility: the follow up of the most part of the normal pregnancies by GP. There was no economic pressure because the National Health Service is free, there are no economic incentives for obstetrical or neonatal care, hospitals are financed through ICD, hospital level is defined according to both delivery and newborn care. In 1989 the rule was “No results can be obtained without the interested and responsible participation of all – institutions and people”. At that time the emphasis was on training. There are geographic influences on regionalization for example for islands and inner and far geographic areas. Also we would like to emphasize the influence of demographics on regionalization. As birth rate continues to decrease the hospitals left open 20 years ago with more than 1500 deliveries have to be closed now because the number of deliveries decreased. It was much more difficult and unacceptable to close some few maternities now than 20 years ago. All the difference was that at that time reasons were explained and now it was a Minister order. Other fearful events are the opening of private hospitals, the lowering gross national income, the economic difficulties and financial problems.

Neuropsychological Abnormalities in Children with the Panayiotopoulos Syndrome Point to Parietal Lobe Dysfunction

Panayiotopoulos syndrome (PS) is a common epilepsy syndrome associated with rare clinical seizures and unknown localization of the epileptogenic area. Despite findings of normal development in patientswith PS, recent neuropsychological studies point to subtle and diverse cognitive impairments. No well-outlined hypothesis about the localization of the brain dysfunction responsible for these impairments has been proposed.We further explored the cognitive dysfunctions in PS andmade inferences on the most likely anatomical localization of brain impairment. A group of 19 patients (aged 6–12) with PS was rated according to spike activity and lateralization. The patients were submitted to a neuropsychological evaluation to assess general intelligence, memory, language, visual–perceptual abilities, attention, and executive functions. Using 35-channel scalp EEG recordings, the N170 face-evoked event-related potential (ERP)was obtained to assess the functional integrity of the ventral pathway. All patientswith PS showed normal IQ but subtle and consistent neurocognitive impairments. Namely, we found abnormalities in the copy task of the Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure and in theNarrative Memory Test. There was no correlation between neuropsychological impairments with spike activity and hemispheric spike lateralization. The N170 ERP was normal in all patients except for one. Our neuropsychological findings demonstrate impairments in visual–perceptual abilities and in semantic processing. These findings, paired with the absence of occipital lobe dysfunction in all neuropsychological studies of PS performed to this date, support the existence of parietal lobe dysfunction.