Winding back the harms of management accreditation?


The BMJ is campaigning against the harms of too much medicine.  Yes, too much medicine can do plenty of harm.  In the ensuing discussion one (slow) rapid response draws parallels with the harm caused by accrediting human behaviour.  We knew that.  But if you’re feeling powerless you can click to like it and contribute to the discussion.

Re: Winding back the harms of too much medicine

5 June 2013

http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f1271/rr/648629

The waste and potential harm of untested ISO accreditation needs to be considered as well as an excess of medicines.

Pathology laboratories have been purchasing accreditation to ISO 15189 and ISO 17025 standards from CPA and UKAS for years. More recently, its growth has spread into radiology and physiological measurement. “Quality” has been redefined strangely as compliance with these standards. Yet, as a consumer, no-one assesses the quality of any other product or service as compliance with ISO standards.

Do obsessively precise measurements and the collection of exhaustive records to enable inspection really improve patient care or is accreditation just an employment scheme for inspectors whose role is outdated? The value to ISO standards for products has not been clearly shown to extend to their systems of management inspection. The Advertising Standards Authority found against the BSI for its wishful claim that BS 5750 paid for itself in cost savings. In the USA, largely without ISO accreditation, labs fail to detect 1 in 20 pathogens.

http://bit.ly/1b3tWxT

External Quality Assurance figures for the UK have not been published and may be little different despite widespread accreditation.

ISO accreditation ought to viewed with the same suspicion as other medical interventions. Like other management fads it is likely to be wasteful and counterproductive. Accreditation is expensive and distracts from job purpose. Its efficacy, effectiveness and value have not been proven according to Cochrane’s principles. Accreditation has been designed to make verification very difficult but whether it is ethical to use it without rigorous testing is questionable.
If accreditation has the power to benefit patients it may also have the power to harm – probably through waste of financial and human resources and delivering a confidence that is false. The cartel of ISO inspection organisations needs to be subjected to validation from outside its membership and equivalent to that for pharmaceutical interventions.

1 in 20 failures leaves room for improvement but sounds like it might largely be explained by the normal distribution curve.  If only the UK would publish how much better providing inspection fodder for UKAS makes lab performance!

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Bureaucracy, Cartel, Laboratory medicine, Management, Medicine, NHS, Practical problems and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

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