Idag kan ses att allt mindre 3D-fastigheter bildas. För att bilda 3Dfastigheter ska en lämplighetsbedömning göras av lantmäterimyndigheten, där bland annat de allmänna lämplighetsvillkoren i kapitel 3 fastighetsbildningslagen ska beaktas. Fastighetsbildningslagens förarbeten och lagkommentar talar om att 3D-fastigheten som bildas ska bli ett lämpligt förvaltningsobjekt och samtidigt vara av påtaglig storlek. Det har visat sig att lantmäterimyndigheterna i vissa ärenden kan ha svårt att bedöma vad som är lämpligt utifrån storleksperspektivet och vad som kan anses vara påtaglig storlek. Studien tar sikte på hur lämpliga förvaltningsobjekt bedöms vid 3D-fastighetsbildning utifrån storleken och hur bedömningen kan påverkas av andra faktorer. För att uppnå målen med studien har enkätundersökning, intervjuer och en studie av förrättningsakter gjorts. Studien av förrättningsakter visar att det är svårt att utläsa något skäl till varför en 3D-fastighet ansetts lämplig. Enkätundersökningen och intervjuerna visar att bedömningen görs främst utifrån 3D-fastighetens ändamål och dess självständighet. Självständigheten innebär att fastigheten ska kunna fungera utan alltför många rättigheter, vara ekonomiskt stabil och fungera förvaltningsmässigt. Däremot har storleken en mycket liten betydelse för lämplighetsbedömningen. Slutsatsen är att lämpligheten för varje förvaltningsobjekt – 3D-fastighet – görs i enlighet med de allmänna lämplighetsvillkor som finns i kapitel 3 fastighetsbildningslagen och att storleken i sig inte har en överhängande betydelse vid bedömningen. Däremot kan bedömning påverkas av andra faktorer som beaktas individuellt i varje ärende. / Nowadays it can be seen that smaller and smaller 3D-property units are formed. To form 3D-property units the property formation procedure must have undergone an assessment of suitability where the general suitability conditions in the third chapter of the Property Formation Act should be taken into account. The legislative history and the commentary of the Property Formation Act speak of that the 3D-property units formed should be suitable management objects and be of palpable size. The size perspective on the 3D-property units has, in some cases, been proven challenging to assess for the cadastral authority. This study examines how the assessment of suitable management objects is performed and how the assessment can be affected by other factors. To achieve this, a survey, interviews and a study of property information procedure dossiers have been done. The study of dossiers shows that it is difficult to see reasons to why the 3D-property unit has been considered suitable. The survey and interviews show that the assessment is done with the 3D-property unit’s purpose and independence in mind. The independence is dependent on that the 3D-property unit can operate without too many rights, be economically stable and function alone from a management perspective. The size is only of small significance when it comes to the assessment. Conclusion is that the suitability for each management object, the 3D-property units, is done according to the general suitability conditions of the third chapter of the Property Formation Act, where the size doesn’t have an impending significance. However, other factors can affect the assessment; factors that are taken into account individually in each 3D-case.

Background Major incidents are characterized by a lack of resources compared to an overwhelming number of casualties, requiring a prioritization of medical treatment. Triage algorithms are an essential tool for prioritizing the urgency of treatment for patients, but the evidence to support one over another is very limited. We determined the influence of blood pressure limits on the diagnostic value of triage algorithms, considering if pulse should be palpated centrally or peripherally. Methods We used a database representing 500 consecutive HEMS patients. Each patient was allocated a triage category (T1/red, T2/yellow, T3/green) by a group of experienced doctors in disaster medicine, independent of any algorithm. mSTaRT, ASAV, Field Triage Score (FTS), Care Flight (CF), “Model Bavaria” and two Norwegian algorithms (Nor and TAS), all containing the question “Pulse palpable?”, were translated into Excel commands, calculating the triage category for each patient automatically. We used 5 blood pressure limits ranging from 130 to 60 mmHg to determine palpable pulse. The resulting triage categories were analyzed with respect to sensitivity, specificity and Youden Index (J) separately for trauma and non-trauma patients, and for all patients combined. Results For the entire population of patients within all triage algorithms the Youden Index (J) was highest for T1 (J between 0,14 and 0,62). Combining trauma and non-trauma patients, the highest J was obtained by ASAV (J = 0,62 at 60 mmHg). ASAV scored the highest within trauma patients (J = 0,87 at 60 mmHg), whereas Model Bavaria (J = 0,54 at 80 mmHg) reached highest amongst non-trauma patients. FTS performed worst for all patients (J = 0,14 at 60 mmHg), showing a lower score for trauma patients (J = 0,0 at 60 mmHg). Change of blood pressure limits resulted in different diagnostic values of all algorithms. Discussion We demonstrate that differing blood pressure limits have a remarkable impact on diagnostic values of triage algorithms. Further research is needed to determine the lowest blood pressure value that is possible to palpate at a peripheral artery compared to a central artery. Conclusion As a consequence, it might be important in which location pulses are palpated according to the algorithm at hand during triage of patients.

Background Major incidents are characterized by a lack of resources compared to an overwhelming number of casualties, requiring a prioritization of medical treatment. Triage algorithms are an essential tool for prioritizing the urgency of treatment for patients, but the evidence to support one over another is very limited. We determined the influence of blood pressure limits on the diagnostic value of triage algorithms, considering if pulse should be palpated centrally or peripherally. Methods We used a database representing 500 consecutive HEMS patients. Each patient was allocated a triage category (T1/red, T2/yellow, T3/green) by a group of experienced doctors in disaster medicine, independent of any algorithm. mSTaRT, ASAV, Field Triage Score (FTS), Care Flight (CF), “Model Bavaria” and two Norwegian algorithms (Nor and TAS), all containing the question “Pulse palpable?”, were translated into Excel commands, calculating the triage category for each patient automatically. We used 5 blood pressure limits ranging from 130 to 60 mmHg to determine palpable pulse. The resulting triage categories were analyzed with respect to sensitivity, specificity and Youden Index (J) separately for trauma and non-trauma patients, and for all patients combined. Results For the entire population of patients within all triage algorithms the Youden Index (J) was highest for T1 (J between 0,14 and 0,62). Combining trauma and non-trauma patients, the highest J was obtained by ASAV (J = 0,62 at 60 mmHg). ASAV scored the highest within trauma patients (J = 0,87 at 60 mmHg), whereas Model Bavaria (J = 0,54 at 80 mmHg) reached highest amongst non-trauma patients. FTS performed worst for all patients (J = 0,14 at 60 mmHg), showing a lower score for trauma patients (J = 0,0 at 60 mmHg). Change of blood pressure limits resulted in different diagnostic values of all algorithms. Discussion We demonstrate that differing blood pressure limits have a remarkable impact on diagnostic values of triage algorithms. Further research is needed to determine the lowest blood pressure value that is possible to palpate at a peripheral artery compared to a central artery. Conclusion As a consequence, it might be important in which location pulses are palpated according to the algorithm at hand during triage of patients.