Dieu, vingt-six portraits bibliques

Vingt-six portraits par vingt-six exégètes. Tel est le défi proposé et assumé pour un parcours surprenant de lectures et d'interprétations multiples d'un Dieu unique et en même temps complexe. Quelle cohérence entre le Dieu fracassant de l'Exode et le Dieu crucifié de l'apôtre Paul ? Quelle continuité entre le Dieu de Gédéon et celui de Jésus : " Mon Dieu, mon Dieu, pourquoi m'as-tu abandonné ? " (Mc 15,34) ? Le Dieu de l'entrée en Canaan ressemble-t-il vraiment à l'Agneau immolé de l'Apocalypse ? Mais déjà, au sein de la Bible hébraïque, les trompettes de Jéricho côtoient le Serviteur souffrant d'Isaïe. Comment comprendre aujourd'hui cette diversité de la présence de Dieu dans la Bible, si ce n'est par la diversité des regards d'exégètes dont la lecture croisée des textes bibliques nous invite à renouveler notre compréhension de Dieu ?

How many diagnosis fields are needed to capture safety events in administrative data? Findings and recommendations from the WHO ICD-11 Topic Advisory Group on Quality and Safety

OBJECTIVE: As part of the WHO ICD-11 development initiative, the Topic Advisory Group on Quality and Safety explores meta-features of morbidity data sets, such as the optimal number of secondary diagnosis fields. DESIGN: The Health Care Quality Indicators Project of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development collected Patient Safety Indicator (PSI) information from administrative hospital data of 19-20 countries in 2009 and 2011. We investigated whether three countries that expanded their data systems to include more secondary diagnosis fields showed increased PSI rates compared with six countries that did not. Furthermore, administrative hospital data from six of these countries and two American states, California (2011) and Florida (2010), were analysed for distributions of coded patient safety events across diagnosis fields. RESULTS: Among the participating countries, increasing the number of diagnosis fields was not associated with any overall increase in PSI rates. However, high proportions of PSI-related diagnoses appeared beyond the sixth secondary diagnosis field. The distribution of three PSI-related ICD codes was similar in California and Florida: 89-90% of central venous catheter infections and 97-99% of retained foreign bodies and accidental punctures or lacerations were captured within 15 secondary diagnosis fields. CONCLUSIONS: Six to nine secondary diagnosis fields are inadequate for comparing complication rates using hospital administrative data; at least 15 (and perhaps more with ICD-11) are recommended to fully characterize clinical outcomes. Increasing the number of fields should improve the international and intra-national comparability of data for epidemiologic and health services research, utilization analyses and quality of care assessment.

Place de la clinique en médecine ambulatoire--les enseignements de l'etude TOPIC [The place of the clinic in primary case--the TOPIC study].

We know very little about the importance of history and physical examination compared to the importance of paraclinical tests in the diagnostic process in primary care. To answer this question, we examined prospectively 672 consecutive patients with chest pain in primary care. We recorded the timing and the clinical characteristics of the most frequent diagnosis. The resort to laboratory or other clinical tests and reference to specialist were influenced by: emergency consultation, potentially life-threatening aetiology, personal characteristics of the general practitioners' (GP) and patients' anxiety. GPs attributed the diagnosis to history and physical examination alone in 66% and to the association of history, physical examination and tests in 31% cases. This, clinical strategy remains the most important factor in the diagnostic process; even when they are insufficient, they allowed to generate hypotheses and guide investigations.

ICD-11 for quality and safety: overview of the who quality and safety topic advisory group.

This paper outlines the approach that the WHO's Family of International Classifications (WHO-FIC) network is undertaking to create ICD-11. We also outline the more focused work of the Quality and Safety Topic Advisory Group, whose activities include the following: (i) cataloguing existing ICD-9 and ICD-10 quality and safety indicators; (ii) reviewing ICD morbidity coding rules for main condition, diagnosis timing, numbers of diagnosis fields and diagnosis clustering; (iii) substantial restructuring of the health-care related injury concepts coded in the ICD-10 chapters 19/20, (iv) mapping of ICD-11 quality and safety concepts to the information model of the WHO's International Classification for Patient Safety and the AHRQ Common Formats; (v) the review of vertical chapter content in all chapters of the ICD-11 beta version and (vi) downstream field testing of ICD-11 prior to its official 2015 release. The transition from ICD-10 to ICD-11 promises to produce an enhanced classification that will have better potential to capture important concepts relevant to measuring health system safety and quality-an important use case for the classification.