Why is quality assurance so difficult? A review of issues in quality assurance over the last decade

Standards for Research Ethics Committees: Purpose, Problems and Possibilities

This paper reports an initiative from the National Research Ethics Service (UK) and research ethics committees in the UK to develop a shared ethical debate between committees and to promote standards of ethical review, exploring the problems and practicalities of such an approach.

Guidelines for Adult Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

PURPOSE

The aim of this guideline is to provide a synopsis of best clinical practices in the rehabilitative care of adults recovering from stroke.

METHODS

Writing group members were nominated by the committee chair on the basis of their previous work in relevant topic areas and were approved by the American Heart Association (AHA) Stroke Council's Scientific Statement Oversight Committee and the AHA's Manuscript Oversight Committee. The panel reviewed relevant articles on adults using computerized searches of the medical literature through 2014. The evidence is organized within the context of the AHA framework and is classified according to the joint AHA/American College of Cardiology and supplementary AHA methods of classifying the level of certainty and the class and level of evidence. The document underwent extensive AHA internal and external peer review, Stroke Council Leadership review, and Scientific Statements Oversight Committee review before consideration and approval by the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee.

RESULTS

Stroke rehabilitation requires a sustained and coordinated effort from a large team, including the patient and his or her goals, family and friends, other caregivers (eg, personal care attendants), physicians, nurses, physical and occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, recreation therapists, psychologists, nutritionists, social workers, and others. Communication and coordination among these team members are paramount in maximizing the effectiveness and efficiency of rehabilitation and underlie this entire guideline. Without communication and coordination, isolated efforts to rehabilitate the stroke survivor are unlikely to achieve their full potential.

CONCLUSIONS

As systems of care evolve in response to healthcare reform efforts, postacute care and rehabilitation are often considered a costly area of care to be trimmed but without recognition of their clinical impact and ability to reduce the risk of downstream medical morbidity resulting from immobility, depression, loss of autonomy, and reduced functional independence. The provision of comprehensive rehabilitation programs with adequate resources, dose, and duration is an essential aspect of stroke care and should be a priority in these redesign efforts. (Stroke.2016;47:e98-e169. DOI: 10.1161/STR.0000000000000098.).

How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review

BACKGROUND

Countries are increasingly devoting significant resources to creating or strengthening research ethics committees, but there has been insufficient attention to assessing whether these committees are actually improving the protection of human research participants.

DISCUSSION

Research ethics committees face numerous obstacles to achieving their goal of improving research participant protection. These include the inherently amorphous nature of ethics review, the tendency of regulatory systems to encourage a focus on form over substance, financial and resource constraints, and conflicts of interest. Auditing and accreditation programs can improve the quality of ethics review by encouraging the development of standardized policies and procedures, promoting a common base of knowledge, and enhancing the status of research ethics committees within their own institutions. However, these mechanisms focus largely on questions of structure and process and are therefore incapable of answering many critical questions about ethics committees' actual impact on research practices. The first step in determining whether research ethics committees are achieving their intended function is to identify what prospective research participants and their communities hope to get out of the ethics review process. Answers to this question can help guide the development of effective outcomes assessment measures. It is also important to determine whether research ethics committees' guidance to investigators is actually being followed. Finally, the information developed through outcomes assessment must be disseminated to key decision-makers and incorporated into practice. This article offers concrete suggestions for achieving these goals.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes assessment of research ethics committees should address the following questions: First, does research ethics committee review improve participants' understanding of the risks and potential benefits of studies? Second, does the process affect prospective participants' decisions about whether to participate in research? Third, does it change participants' subjective experiences in studies or their attitudes about research? Fourth, does it reduce the riskiness of research? Fifth, does it result in more research responsive to the local community's self-identified needs? Sixth, is research ethics committees' guidance to researchers actually being followed?

Quality, risk management and governance in mental health: an overview

OBJECTIVE

To consider the origin, current emphasis and relevance of the concepts of quality, risk management and clinical governance in mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasingly, health service boards and management teams are required to give attention to clinical governance rather than corporate governance alone. Clinical governance is a unifying quality concept that aims to produce a structure and systems to assure and improve the quality of clinical services by promoting an integrated and organization-wide approach towards continuous quality improvement. Many psychiatrists will find the reduction in clinical autonomy, the need to consider the welfare of the whole population as well as the individual patient for whom they are responsible, and the requirement that they play a part in a complex systems approach to quality improvement to be a challenge. Avoiding or ignoring this challenge will potentially lead to conflict with modern management approaches and increased loss of influence on future developments in mental health services.

Crossing the quality chasm: a requirement for successful cervical cancer prevention in developing countries

Disease prevention requires sociopolitical change, which in turn requires the participation of those for whom the change is intended, including demographic groups at high risk for disease, appropriate governmental authorities, and essential health care personnel. Multiparous women of lowest socioeconomic status, the demographic group at highest risk for the development of cervical cancer, lack sociopolitical leverage almost by definition. Pap screening in developing countries is an idea whose time has come, but it is also an ethical imperative currently lacking a substantial sociopolitical constituency. Noncytologic screening methods currently benefit from sponsorship by corporate manufacturers and by donor organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Pap screening efforts in developing countries will benefit from the involvement of cytology organizations based in developed countries. Future assessments of the progress of cervical cancer prevention efforts in developing countries will benefit from additional examination of the interactions between quality and sociopolitical obstacles to change. Many of these obstacles will be elucidated by following the money, as well as the science, involved in cervical screening activities.