Evidence-based healthcare 10 years on: is the National Institute of Clinical Studies the answer?
Author: Louise V Hall
Published online: 21 January 2002
To the Editor: The recent creation of the National Institute for Clinical Studies (NICS) is an exciting new opportunity for bridging the gap between evidence and practice.1
In carrying out this task, NICS will be directed by the members of its Board. Balanced stakeholder representation on the Board is required for NICS to produce optimal results. At present the Board consists of nine members, of whom eight are medical practitioners. The importance of doctors in the process and implementation of quality improvement initiatives is indisputable. However, other healthcare professionals also play a central role in achieving quality health outcomes for patients.2 Board membership more representative of its stakeholders would provide NICS with a broader range of perspectives, which could only be seen as beneficial.
Given the current debate surrounding ethics and evidence-based healthcare, the values and expectations of healthcare consumers also need to be taken into account.3 One of the definitions of quality in healthcare is "consistently meeting or exceeding informed customers' opinion".4 It is crucial that the consumer's voice be heard in matters relating to healthcare research and in the implementation of quality initiatives. As the relevance and acceptability of quality initiatives undertaken by NICS will have an impact on health outcomes for consumers, it is important that such initiatives take into account the preferences of consumers. For this reason, we believe it is imperative that NICS include a consumer on its Board.
An example of successful integration of a wide range of stakeholders onto a board is the Federal Government-funded National Health Priority Action Council, with representation from State/Territory, Indigenous and consumer groups and a balanced gender mix. We hope that NICS has strategies in place to enhance stakeholder representation on its Board, as this may be a factor in determining whether or not NICS becomes another forgettable acronym.
References
- Silagy C. Evidence-based healthcare 10 years on: is the National Institute of Clinical Studies the answer? [editorial] Med J Aust 2001; 175: 124-125. <eMJA full text>
- Donabedian A. The quality of care: how can it be assessed? JAMA 1988; 260: 1743-1748. i1063049
- Leeder S, Rychetnik L. Ethics and evidence-based medicine. Med J Aust 2001; 175: 161-164. i1063051
- Headrick L, Neuhauser D. Quality health care. JAMA 1995; 273: 1718-1720. i1063053
Interpreting Australian Stillbirth Rate Trends: Implications for Surveillance and Continuous Quality Improvement
Aleena M. Wojcieszek, Kirstine Sketcher-Baker, Christine Andrews, Michael Coory, Imogen Kettle, Melissa Malivoire, David Ellwood, Vicki Flenady
Paracetamol in Pregnancy: Uncertain Evidence, Certain Consequences
David J. Tunnicliffe, Miranda Cumpston, Debra Kennedy, Margie Danchin, Armando Teixeira-Pinto
Fatty Liver Disease in Australia: A Narrative Review on the Epidemiology, Natural History, Prognostication and Management in People With Metabolic Dysfunction
Karl Vaz, Daniel Clayton-Chubb, William W. Kemp, Stuart K. Roberts, Ammar Majeed
Birth prevalence, clinical sequelae, and management of congenital cytomegalovirus infections in Australia, 1999–2023: a national prospective study
Ece Egilmezer, Suzy M Teutsch, Carlos Nunez, Stuart T Hamilton, Adam W Bartlett, Pamela Palasanthiran, Elizabeth J Elliott, William D Rawlinson
The number of cancer‐related deaths that could be attributable to spatial disparities in survival in Australia, 2010–2019: a retrospective population‐based cohort study
Charlotte K Bainomugisa, Jessica Cameron, Paramita Dasgupta, Peter Baade
Mandatory research projects during medical specialist training in Australia and New Zealand
Paulina Stehlik, Caitlin Brandenburg, David A Henry