Cochrane’s ladder


Archie Cochrane’s ladder of evidence.  It’s helpful viewpoint for evaluating whether a treatment is worthwhile, isn’t it?   Accreditation is a treatment that is supposed to create quality…whatever that is. 

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d2175.full.pdf

Like everything else, the accreditation philosophy rests on the base of presupposition.

Does the ladder help accreditation get off the ground?  Er…no…the accreditation ladder has no rungs.

Is accreditation efficacious – can it work?  Em…we have no idea.

Is accreditation effective to inspect in quality – does it work in practice?  There’s no sign of it.  There’s also no sign of anybody interested in looking.  All we know is that quality can’t be inspected in after the event in other systems. The laborious rituals are sufficient in themselves to provide satisfaction for those with this compliance fetish.  

Is it cost-effective – is it worth it?  UKAS claims it is, but that’s wishful thinking.  They don’t seem to know much about clinical trials or quality of evidence.  We haven’t got anywhere near this stage yet. 

Never mind…calculate the uncertainty of measurement!   Plus or minus infinity is OK as long as it’s stated clearly. 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Economics, Laboratory medicine, Medicine, Philosophy and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Cochrane’s ladder

  1. Pingback: The hidden Tamiflu data | ISOwatch

  2. Pingback: Wilson & Jungner screening criteria – ignored | ISOwatch

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s