Diversifying stem cell debates: Including Muslim contexts and perspectives.

Greater transcultural and transdisciplinary engagement within Muslim contexts and deliberate inclusion of diverse Muslim voices in the development of international guidelines is required to improve understanding of the state of stem cell science, strengthen thinking about attendant ethical complexities, enhance compliance, deepen public deliberation, increase trust, and strengthen practice standards.

Tool to assess causality of direct and indirect adverse events associated with therapeutic interventions.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and test a tool to assess the causality of direct and indirect adverse events associated with therapeutic interventions. The intervention was one or more drugs and/or natural health products, a device, or practice (professional delivering the intervention). METHODS: Through the assessment of causality of adverse events, we can learn about factors contributing to the harm and consider what modification may prevent its reoccurrence. Existing scales (WHO-UMC, Naranjo and Horn) were adapted to develop a tool (algorithm and table) to evaluate cases of serious harmful events reported through a national surveillance study. We also incorporated a novel approach that assesses indirect harm (caused by the delay in diagnosis/treatment) and the health provider delivering the intervention (practice). The tool was tested, revised and then implemented to assess all reported cases of serious events resulting from use of complementary therapies. The use of complementary therapies was the trigger to report the event. Each case was evaluated by two assessors, out of a panel of five, representing different health care professionals. RESULTS: The tool was used in assessment of eight serious adverse events. Each event was independently evaluated by two assessors. The algorithm facilitated assessment of a serious direct or indirect harm. Assessors agreed in the final score on seven of eight cases (weighted kappa coefficient of 0.75). CONCLUSION: A tool to support the assessment of causality of adverse events was developed and tested. We propose a novel method to assess direct and indirect harms related to product(s), device(s), practice or a combination of the previous. Further research will probably help evaluate this approach across different settings and interventions.

Indicators of safety compromise in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: The importance of quality indicators has become increasingly recognized in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patient safety requires the identification and monitoring of occurrences associated with harm or the potential for harm. The identification of relevant indicators of safety compromise is, therefore, a critical element that is key to the effective implementation of endoscopy quality improvement programs. OBJECTIVE: To identify key indicators of safety compromise in gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Safety and Quality Indicators in Endoscopy Consensus Group was formed to address issues of quality in endoscopy. A subcommittee was formed to identify key safety indicators. A systematic literature review was undertaken, and articles pertinent to safety in endoscopy were identified and reviewed. All complications and measures used to document safety were recorded. From this, a preliminary list of 16 indicators was compiled and presented to the 35-person consensus group during a three-day meeting. A revised list of 20 items was subsequently put to the consensus group for vote for inclusion on the final list of safety indicators. Items were retained only if the consensus group highly agreed on their importance. RESULTS: A total of 19 indicators of safety compromise were retained and grouped into the three following categories: medication-related - the need for CPR, use of reversal agents, hypoxia, hypotension, hypertension, sedation doses in patients older than 70 years of age, allergic reactions and laryngospasm/bronchospasm; procedure-related early - perforation, immediate postpolypectomy bleeding, need for hospital admission or transfer to emergency department from the gastroenterology unit, instrument impaction, severe persistent abdominal pain requiring evaluation proven to not be perforation; and procedure-related delayed - death within 30 days of procedure, 14-day unplanned hospitalization, 14-day unplanned contact with a health provider, gastrointestinal bleeding within 14 days of procedure, infection or symptomatic metabolic complications. CONCLUSIONS: The 19 indicators of safety compromise in endoscopy, identified by a rigorous, evidence-based consensus process, provide clear outcomes to be recorded by all facilities as part of their continuing quality improvement programs.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Increasing use of gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly for colorectal cancer screening, and increasing emphasis on health care quality, highlight the need for clearly defined, evidence-based processes to support quality improvement in endoscopy. OBJECTIVE: To identify processes and indicators of quality and safety relevant to high-quality endoscopy service delivery. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of 35 voting participants developed recommendation statements and performance indicators. Systematic literature searches generated 50 initial statements that were revised iteratively following a modified Delphi approach using a web-based evaluation and voting tool. Statement development and evidence evaluation followed the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, REsearch and Evaluation) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) guidelines. At the consensus conference, participants voted anonymously on all statements using a 6-point scale. Subsequent web-based voting evaluated recommendations for specific, individual quality indicators, safety indicators and mandatory endoscopy reporting fields. Consensus was defined a priori as agreement by 80% of participants. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 23 recommendation statements addressing the following: ethics (statement 1: agreement 100%), facility standards and policies (statements 2 to 9: 90% to 100%), quality assurance (statements 10 to 13: 94% to 100%), training, education, competency and privileges (statements 14 to 19: 97% to 100%), endoscopy reporting standards (statements 20 and 21: 97% to 100%) and patient perceptions (statements 22 and 23: 100%). Additionally, 18 quality indicators (agreement 83% to 100%), 20 safety indicators (agreement 77% to 100%) and 23 recommended endoscopy-reporting elements (agreement 91% to 100%) were identified. DISCUSSION: The consensus process identified a clear need for high-quality clinical and outcomes research to support quality improvement in the delivery of endoscopy services. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines support quality improvement in endoscopy by providing explicit recommendations on systematic monitoring, assessment and modification of endoscopy service delivery to yield benefits for all patients affected by the practice of gastrointestinal endoscopy.