David Willetts, Minister for Universities and Science, writes that
Criticising some of the old fashioned red tape, he misses the ISO accreditation scam that the BSI gave the world. Britain is the source and many Britons still gain comfort and income from it. Some Britons love EU regulation more than the Europeans. The Cabinet Office and BSI are still promoting UKAS since they have believed its assertion that accreditation is an alternative to legislation. It only changes where the money flows.
Mr Willetts omits to mention the multiple international accreditation schemes that certain clinical departments are subject to without new resources being provided.
Elsewhere, the Telegraph reports,
Will this bring an end to mistreatment, complaints, claims and enquiries, or is it too of little use? Could incompetence arise from the stress of always preparing records for scrutiny? Who is checking that?
Readers’ comments below the article provide more sensible solutions.
Maybe continual checking is not helpful at all – the BMJ reports on a Cochrane review:
General health checks do not reduce morbidity or mortality and should not be included as part of a public health programme, say Cochrane researchers who carried out a systematic review of the evidence.
The review, published in the Cochrane Library, included 14 trials involving 182 880 people.1 Nine of the trials studied the risk of death and included 155 899 participants. Health checks had no effect on the risk of death or on the specific risk of death from cardiovascular disease or cancer.
Neither did the researchers find an effect on the risk of illness, although one trial found an increased number of people that health checks identified as having hypertension and high cholesterol concentrations, and …
Will someone please connect the dots?
How long will we wait for a Cochrane review of whether any types of quality inspections make a worthwhile difference?