RESUMEN
During the last decade, treatment (artificial) wetlands have flourished all over Europe for the treatment of sewages from small communities thanks to their low cost of operation. The clogging of the filter of these wetlands is an issue affecting their efficiency and considered as their main operational problem. The present work shows the results of the application of a geophysical method called time-domain induced polarization. It is used to non-intrusively image, in 3D, the clogging of the gravel filters in a quick and efficient way. Induced polarization characterizes the ability of a porous material to reversibly store electrical charges when submitted to an electrical field. The material property characterizing this ability is called normalized chargeability. A set of laboratory experiments allows to determine an empirical relationship between the normalized chargeability and the weight amount of clogging. Induced polarization measurements have been performed in the field over a treatment wetland to get a 3D reconstructed image (tomography) of the normalized chargeability. From this tomography and the previously defined relationship, we are able to image in 3D the distribution of clogging and where it is concentrated in the filter. We can therefore identify the areas requiring preventive measures to minimize this clogging issue.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Disclosing information to a patient who is a victim of an adverse event (AE) presents some particularities depending on the legal framework in the country where the AE occurred. The aim of this study is to identify the limits and conditions when apologizing to a patient who has suffered an AE. METHODS: A consensus conference involving 26 professionals from different autonomous communities, institutions, and profiles (health, insurance, inspection, academic) with accredited experience in patient safety management systems and criminal law. RESULTS: Open disclosure should include an apology expressed in neutral terms (showing empathy and regret for what has happened) without the informant being identified as responsible for the damage, blaming third parties, or offering compensation on behalf of the insurance company. The professional who feels most directly involved in the incident is usually the least likely to report it and apologise. The informant profile must conform to the type and severity of the AE. The rules and conditions of liability insurance advise against providing specific information on the amount of compensation. CONCLUSIONS: The apology should be offered in terms of the regulatory framework in force in each country. In Spain, an appropriate response of empathy for the patient is warranted, expressing regret for what happened (apologising), which can facilitate the relationship with the patient, mitigate their mistrust, and reduce the number of disputes.
