When the assessors visit they want to see that masses of statistical work has been done to demonstrate the uncertainty of your measurements. ISO 17025 requires it. Assessment gang members have additional guides on it. Customers who just wanted test reports find uncertainty confusing.
Oxebridge reports the IAF’s claim that 93% of its customers have transitioned to its 2015 standards.
Click and read the analysis of data that shows they’re lying.
There’s nothing new in their numerical fabrications. Remember John Seddon’s open letter to Stephan Breeze at the BSI when customers were rubber-stamped into the latest standard overnight in order to meet the transition deadline?
The panic transitioning looked better than simply lying about the figures as they do now.
While UKAS demands calculations of uncertainty of measurement that are often time-wasting and unnecessary, none of the cartel members are being pressed to deal honestly with the corrupted statistics they use to promote their publishing and inspection businesses.
Melinda Ashton wrote in Getting Rid of Stupid Stuff
Nuclear safety guy, Martin Wakeman, summarises the backlash against malpractice using ISO standards in cartoons:
The BMJ published
Association between patient outcomes and accreditation in US hospitals: observational study by Lam et al. BMJ 2018;363:k4011 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4011
The Boston doctors investigated over 4 million patient outcomes in this retrospective observational study.
“US hospital accreditation by independent organizations is not associated with lower mortality, and is only slightly associated with reduced readmission rates for the 15 common medical conditions selected in this study. There was no evidence in this study to indicate that patients choosing a hospital accredited by The Joint Commission confer any healthcare benefits over choosing a hospital accredited by another independent accrediting organization.”
It’s not run by the ISO gang but the idea is similar. The Joint Commission dominates the marketplace and its inspections focus on structural factors and processes rather than the outcomes that matter.
Let’s hope for more studies like this exposing multimillion dollar rip-offs.
No time to read the paper? Medscape has a shorter summary here.
The King’s Fund report referred to in the previous BMJ article can be downloaded here:
Impact of the Care Quality Commission on provider performance: room for improvement?
Its long summary includes,
What are the implications of our findings?
We also tried to measure the impact of regulation quantitatively.
First, we examined whether provider performance changed following an inspection by analysing routine data about accident and emergency services, maternity services and general practice prescribing. We found that inspection and rating had small and mixed effects on key performance indicators in these areas. This may suggest CQC had a limited impact in these areas, or it may be that the effects of regulation are difficult to measure with routine data sources. The impact of the CQC is also difficult to isolate from other factors affecting provider performance.
We also explored whether CQC ratings affect where patients seek treatment, by looking at the impact of inspection and rating on service volumes in maternity services. We found little evidence of parents (or their agents) exercising choice in response to ratings – receipt of an ‘inadequate’ rating seems to have little measurable impact on subsequent service volumes.
Finally, we analysed the Intelligent Monitoring (IM) dataset – a large set of routine performance indicators that CQC used to risk assess organisations and to help them decide when to inspect a provider and what to focus on. While the datasets were not intended to predict inspection ratings, we might expect an association between the two. We found that the IM datasets had little or no correlation with the subsequent ratings of general practices or of acute trusts. This highlights the limitations of risk-based regulatory models that use routinely reported performance data to target regulatory interventions.
The CQC didn’t get off to a good start. Its new boss is dismissing the findings of the King’s Fund report.
He brushed aside the criticism that CQC inspections had failed to show up any quantitative improvements in services. “We know our work is already leading to improved services and better care and there is strong support for what we are doing from the public and providers,” he said. “With our next phase approach we are building on this work and moving forward, to ensure that more people get good care, more of the time.”
ISO assessment bodies would do the same if they had been inspected according to results (rather than an ISO) and found wanting.
The evidence that such inspection regimes are not worthwhile is accumulating.
The King’s Fund report gives warning that risk-based inspection works poorly and this should assure that risk-based ISOs are not significantly better than the versions previously sold.
If it were a drug is would require and adequate trail. Massively wasteful management systems are put in place based only on the need to sell a new standard, not results that have been proven.
Did you expect the cartel to test the new ISO standards before use like any other expensive and dangerous tool?