Dataset Information

The Need for Standards Unification in Forensic Laboratory Practices: Protocol for Setting Up the Arab Forensic Laboratories Accreditation Center.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite the recent trend toward developing and applying quality control measures in the forensic science disciplines, there is a heightened interest to efforts to ameliorate disparate quality among laboratories through the enforcement of standards and best practices.

Objective

This protocol aims to set up the Arab Forensic Laboratories Accreditation Center (AFLAC) to act as a key driving legal force for accreditation of the different forensic laboratories in the Arab region.

Methods

Upon its development, the Forensic Laboratory-Arabian Gate (FLAG) platform will serve as a preliminary stage for the AFLAC, and 2 preparatory steps will be achieved through the FLAG platform: the first one is a scoping study to analyze the international guidelines regarding the forensic laboratory practices in different specialties, and the second one is mapping surveys to explore how the international and national guidelines are translated into practice in Arab forensic laboratories. Development of the Arab forensic laboratories accreditation center will be initiated by building the AFLAC quality management system, which comprises formation of the forensic science committees to achieve the standards required for accreditation in each discipline. This will be followed by the attainment of regional accreditation recognition of the Arab Accreditation Cooperation (ARAC) and the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation. This recognition necessitates achieving International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission 17011 standard requirements prior to official application to the ARAC.

Results

The first phase of our work (the FLAG platform) began in February 2022 and is expected to end in December 2022. The FLAG platform was proposed to the Arab Society of Forensic Sciences and Forensic Medicine in March 2022, and we received approval to host this web development project. Subsequent phases are anticipated to begin in January 2023 and are expected to end in 2025.

Conclusions

This work describes our approach to provide a valuable tool for forensic laboratory accreditation services to promote the best practice and its consistency in the field of forensic sciences in the Arab region.

International registered report identifier (irrid)

PRR1-10.2196/36778.

SUBMITTER: AlMazroua MK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9280477 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing evidence suggests that sustainable delivery of interprofessional education (IPE) has the potential to lead to interprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP), which in turn has the potential to lead to enhanced healthcare systems and improved patient-centered care health outcomes. To enhance IPE in Canada, the Accreditation of Interprofessional Health Education (AIPHE) project initiated collaborative efforts among accrediting organizations of six health professions to embed IPE language into their respective accreditation standards. To further understand the impact of the AIPHE project, this study evaluated the accountability of the IPE language currently embedded in Canadian health professions' accreditation standards documents and examined whether such language spanned the five accreditation standards domains identified in the AIPHE project.MethodsWe conducted a comparative content analysis to identify and examine IPE language within the "accountable" statements in the current accreditation standards for 11 Canadian health professions that met our eligibility criteria.Results and discussionA total of 77 IPE-relevant accountable statements were identified across 13 accreditation standards documents for the 11 health professions. The chiropractic, pharmacy, and physiotherapy documents represented nearly 50% (38/77) of all accountable statements. The accountable statements for pharmacy, dentistry, dietetics, and nursing (registered) spanned across three-to-four accreditation standards domains. The remaining nine professions' statements referred mostly to "Students" and "Educational program." Furthermore, the majority of accreditation standards documents failed to provide a definition of IPE, and those that did, were inconsistent across health professions.ConclusionsIt was encouraging to see frequent reference to IPE within the accreditation standards of the health professions involved in this study. The qualitative findings, however, suggest that the emphasis of these accountable statements is mainly on the students and educational program, potentially compromising the sustainability and development, implementation, and evaluation of this frequently misunderstood pedagogical approach. The findings and exemplary IPE-relevant accountable statements identified in this paper should be of interest to all relevant stakeholders including those countries, where IPE accreditation is still emerging, as a means to accelerate and strengthen achieving desired educational and health outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the evidence upon which standards for hospital accreditation by The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (the Joint Commission) are based.DesignCross sectional study.SettingUnited States.ParticipantsFour Joint Commission R3 (requirement, rationale, and reference) reports released by July 2018 and intended to become effective between 1 July 2018 and 1 July 2019.InterventionsFrom each R3 report the associated standard and its specific elements of performance (or actionable standards) were extracted. If an actionable standard enumerated multiple requirements, these were separated into distinct components. Two investigators reviewed full text references, and each actionable standard was classified as either completely supported, partly supported, or not supported; Oxford evidence quality ratings were assigned; and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the strength of recommendations.Main outcome measureStrengths of recommendation for actionable standards.Results20 actionable standards with 76 distinct components were accompanied by 48 references. Of the 20 actionable standards, six (30%) were completely supported by cited references, six were partly supported (30%), and eight (40%) were not supported. Of the six directly supported actionable standards, one (17%) cited at least one reference of level 1 or 2 evidence, none cited at least one reference of level 3 evidence, and five (83%) cited references of level 4 or 5 evidence. Of the completely supported actionable standards, strength of recommendation in five was deemed GRADE D and in one was GRADE B.ConclusionsIn general, recent actionable standards issued by The Joint Commission are seldom supported by high quality data referenced within the issuing documents. The Joint Commission might consider being more transparent about the quality of evidence and underlying rationale supporting each of its recommendations, including clarifying when and why in certain instances it determines that lower level evidence is sufficient.