Do all accreditation programmes do harm?

Muir Gray memorably wrote,

All screening programmes do harm; some do good as well, and, of these, some do more good than harm at reasonable cost. The first task of any public health service is to identify beneficial programmes by appraising the evidence. However, evidence of a favourable balance of benefit to harm in a research setting does not guarantee that a similar balance will be reproduced in practice, so screening programmes need to be introduced in a way that allows their quality to be measured and continuously improved.

Maximising benefit and minimising harm of screening.  BMJ 2008; 336 doi:

ISO management accreditation works like a poor quality screening test while claiming to assure quality which it lacks itself.  Here’s how it works in a graph:

Inverse care law

Do all ISO accreditation programmes do harm?  How does it work for you?  What’s your evidence?  Publish it.

This entry was posted in Bureaucracy, Laboratory medicine, Management, Medicine and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Do all accreditation programmes do harm?

  1. Pingback: Do all accreditation programmes do harm? | ISOwatch | renalgate

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s