Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Kieran Walshe

Publications and source records attributed to Kieran Walshe.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

Learning from litigation. The role of claims analysis in patient safety.

Claims for malpractice and medical negligence are a potentially important source of information on the causes of harm to patients and have provided valuable lessons in the past. However today, with many additional sources of information and methods of analysis, the role of claims analysis needs to be reappraised. We consider the role of claims analysis in relation to other methods of studying adverse outcomes, review previous studies of claims and summarize the findings of four recent British specialty claims reviews. Claims analysis has a number of inherent limitations. We suggest that there is now no case for ad hoc claims reviews which rely on data that have been assembled for legal purposes only. Claims review is still potentially useful for rare events or in cases where other sources of data are not available. However, future claims reviews need to meet basic criteria before being undertaken; these include prospective identification of the relevant questions and variables, adequacy and completeness of the data set, availability of expert reviewers and clear protocols for review.

Health Services Research↗

Development of an information source for patients and the public about general practice services: an action research study.

OBJECTIVE: The publication of information about the performance of health-care providers is regarded as central to promoting greater accountability and empowering patients to exercise choice. The evidence suggests that the public is not very interested in accessing or using current sources of information. This study aimed to explore the information needs of patients in the context of UK primary care and to develop an information source about general practice services, designed to be usable by and useful to patients. DESIGN: An action research study making use of data from formal and informal interviews, focus groups, participant observation and document review. SETTING: The geographical areas covered by two Primary Care Trusts in the north of England and two Local Health Boards in south Wales. PARTICIPANTS: A partnership between 103 members of the public, general practice staff from 19 practices, NHS managers from four Primary Care Organizations and the research team. RESULTS: The public would like to know more about the quality and range of general practice services but current sources of information do not meet their needs. The public do not like league tables comparing the performance of practices and only a small number of people want to use comparative information to choose between practices. They seem to be more interested in the context and availability of services and the willingness of practices to improve, than in the practice's absolute or relative performance. They want to be clear about the source of the information so that they can make personal judgements about its veracity. Information is most likely to be useful if it adheres to the basic principles of cognitive science in terms of its structure, content and presentation format. Using these findings, paper and electronic prototype versions of a guide to general practice services have been developed. CONCLUSIONS: In order to maximize the potential use of performance information by the public it is necessary to move beyond provider-led and professionally constructed approaches to information provision and ensure that the public is actively involved in the development of information sources. Such involvement produces a different kind of information to that currently available to the public. The findings of this study have important implications for policy. Most importantly, it seems that the traditional consumerist model underlying a policy of making comparative performance information available to the public to enable them to exercise choice between primary care providers may not be appropriate. An alternative model of information provision, which recognizes the public's commitment to their practice and is integrated with 'soft' sources of knowledge is more likely to engage and be of use to the public.

England↗

Nowhere to go.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

News↗

Realist review--a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions.

Evidence-based policy is a dominant theme in contemporary public services but the practical realities and challenges involved in using evidence in policy-making are formidable. Part of the problem is one of complexity. In health services and other public services, we are dealing with complex social interventions which act on complex social systems--things like league tables, performance measures, regulation and inspection, or funding reforms. These are not 'magic bullets' which will always hit their target, but programmes whose effects are crucially dependent on context and implementation. Traditional methods of review focus on measuring and reporting on programme effectiveness, often find that the evidence is mixed or conflicting, and provide little or no clue as to why the intervention worked or did not work when applied in different contexts or circumstances, deployed by different stakeholders, or used for different purposes. This paper offers a model of research synthesis which is designed to work with complex social interventions or programmes, and which is based on the emerging 'realist' approach to evaluation. It provides an explanatory analysis aimed at discerning what works for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and how. The first step is to make explicit the programme theory (or theories)--the underlying assumptions about how an intervention is meant to work and what impacts it is expected to have. We then look for empirical evidence to populate this theoretical framework, supporting, contradicting or modifying the programme theories as it goes. The results of the review combine theoretical understanding and empirical evidence, and focus on explaining the relationship between the context in which the intervention is applied, the mechanisms by which it works and the outcomes which are produced. The aim is to enable decision-makers to reach a deeper understanding of the intervention and how it can be made to work most effectively. Realist review does not provide simple answers to complex questions. It will not tell policy-makers or managers whether something works or not, but will provide the policy and practice community with the kind of rich, detailed and highly practical understanding of complex social interventions which is likely to be of much more use to them when planning and implementing programmes at a national, regional or local level.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗

Primary care trusts.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Health Facility Merger↗

Smash and grab.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Health Facilities, Proprietary↗

Social regulation of healthcare organizations in the United States: developing a framework for evaluation.

Social regulation is ubiquitous in the US healthcare system, and American healthcare organizations claim to be among the most regulated institutions in the world. Yet relatively little is known about the impact of social regulation on these organizations' performance, or about the characteristics or determinants of effective regulatory strategies and approaches. This paper explores the use of social regulation in US healthcare, drawing on the wider literature on regulation in other countries and settings and on the growing body of general regulatory theory. It offers a framework for analysing and comparing regulatory arrangements, presents the findings from an exploratory qualitative study of regulators and regulated organizations, and concludes by developing a framework of the emergent characteristics of effective regulation which might be used in future evaluations of healthcare regulation.

Accreditation↗

No holding back.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Contract Services↗

Quantitative detection of C-reactive protein using phosphocholine-labelled enzyme or microspheres.

C-reactive protein (CRP) is a positive, acute-phase protein. Plasma levels rise dramatically in response to tissue injury or inflammation and fall rapidly after recovery or treatment. Antibody-based human CRP test systems do not readily detect CRP from other animals due to the species specificity of antibodies directed against human CRP. Thus, generic systems for CRP detection, based solely on the interaction between CRP and phosphocholine (PC), have been developed. PC-bovine serum albumin (PC-BSA) conjugates were produced and either labeled with horseradish peroxidase to facilitate CRP detection in a CRP enzyme-linked sorbent assay (ELSA) or coupled to carboxy-modified microspheres to facilitate the nonenzymatic, turbidimetric detection of CRP. The CRP-ELSA is a competitive assay, where the total assay time is 45 min, the assay sensitivity is 1.06 mg/L CRP, and the dynamic range of the assay is 0-500 mg/L. When PC-BSA conjugate is covalently coupled to carboxylated microspheres, agglutination occurs in the presence of CRP, the extent of which depends on the quantity of CRP present in the sample. Total assay time is 5 min with a dynamic range of 25-500 mg/L. Both assay formats are capable of accurately detecting human CRP and the CRP-ELSA can detect canine CRP as a disease state indicator.

Animals↗