Oversight Committee Effective Date Range

AimsHealth Education England launched a new system for study leave and study budget on 1st April 2018, in response to trainees' concerns regarding the previous system. According to this, Health Education England would manage the study leave budget through its local offices, making the process of accessing study ‘more transparent, equitable and streamlined' for all trainees. At the RAP Oversight Committee meeting of the North West Deanery in 2019, trainees' uncertainties over the process was discussed by the local reps. It was aimed that there was a need to gather information on trainees' needs and understanding of local processes in place by the deanery to access study leave and study budgetMethodA cross sectional survey was sent out to all the trainees by the Core Trainees year 1 RAP rep. A total of 6 relevant questions were designed and sent out to the trainees, allowing them 2 weeks’ time to respond. There were a total of 66 trainees who were sent the survey. The guidance mentioned in the 2016 Gold guide was used for reference to ensure the questions are relevant.ResultOf the total of 66 trainees who were sent the survey, there were 48 respondents. The results indicated that all 48 responders preferred study budget and leave process explained at induction. 47 of 48 respnders sought access to their study budget, 46 of 48 responders sought use of budget for external course and exam fees fudning, 27 of the 48 responders struggled to get study leave and 27 of 48 responders felt the current leave process was not satisfactory with 14 opining that there was scope for improvemement.ConclusionThe responses were collated by the trainee rep as a PowerPoint presentation containing graphical representation of trainees’ views regarding their study leaves and budget access. The survey results were made aware to the local board at the subsequent RAP Oversight Committee meeting to seek response and new guidance. There is a new system in place for study leave and study budgets, overseen by Health Education England. Overall, the survery attempted to understand and collate trainees' wants and needs, in effect improving trainee experiences.

Download Full-text

Using cognitive work analysis to design a continuous quality improvement monitoring system for medical school accreditation

10.32469/10355/67660 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

◽

Lisa A. Royse

Keyword(s):

Quality Improvement ◽

Medical School ◽

Monitoring System ◽

Continuous Quality Improvement ◽

Cognitive Work Analysis ◽

Work Analysis ◽

Continuous Quality ◽

Cognitive Work ◽

Oversight Committee ◽

Information Constraints

[ACCESS RESTRICTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI AT AUTHOR'S REQUEST.] The purpose of this study is to apply phases of Cognitive Work Analysis (CWA) to identify human and information constraints in how a medical school tracks and monitors the Liaison Committee of Medical Education (LCME) accreditation elements and use the identified constraints to guide design decisions for development of a Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Tracker system that will be used to facilitate the LCME Oversight Committee meetings. The researcher answered the following questions: What do the phases of CWA reveal about system constraints of a LCME CQI monitoring system at a medical school? More specifically, what are the design implications for a system that supports an oversight committee in the continuous monitoring of accreditation elements at a medical school? Direct observations, document review, and interviews with 17 members of the LCME Oversight Committee were conducted. Findings from qualitative analysis of interview transcripts were mapped to three phases of CWA. Findings were then used to create models that allowed the researcher to gain a deep understanding of the human and information constraints to consider when designing an LCME CQI tracking system.

Download Full-text

Society for Vascular Surgery Document Oversight Committee and Vascular Quality Initiative working together to improve patient care

Journal of Vascular Surgery ◽

10.1016/j.jvs.2020.03.057 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 72 (3) ◽

pp. 777-778

Author(s):

Jens Eldrup-Jorgensen ◽

Fred Weaver ◽

Ruth Bush

Keyword(s):

Vascular Surgery ◽

Patient Care ◽

Improve Patient Care ◽

Working Together ◽

Oversight Committee ◽

Improve Patient

Download Full-text

The legend of Saint Alan: Larnaudie and Stiegler in the Oversight Committee Room

French Cultural Studies ◽

10.1177/0957155819874750 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 31 (3) ◽

pp. 173-184

Author(s):

Calum Watt

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Financial Crisis ◽

Federal Reserve ◽

House Of Representatives ◽

Global Financial Crisis ◽

The United States ◽

Government Reform ◽

The Us ◽

Oversight Committee ◽

Bernard Stiegler

Ten years on from the 2008 global financial crisis, this article sets in dialogue two French treatments – by the novelist Mathieu Larnaudie and the philosopher Bernard Stiegler – of footage of the 2008 testimony of Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The article introduces and compares the concepts of ‘effondrement’ and ‘prolétarisation’ developed by the two writers in relation to the Greenspan hearing, and analyses how both understand the question of ideology as it emerges in the hearing. Informed by interviews conducted by the author with Larnaudie and Stiegler, the piece concludes by discussing the notion common to both writers that Greenspan is a ‘saint’ of the crisis.

Download Full-text

A third trial oversight committee: Functions, benefits and issues

Clinical Trials ◽

10.1177/1740774519881619 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 17 (1) ◽

pp. 106-112

Author(s):

J Athene Lane ◽

Carrol Gamble ◽

William J Cragg ◽

Doreen Tembo ◽

Matthew R Sydes

Keyword(s):

Data Monitoring Committee ◽

Steering Committee ◽

Data Monitoring ◽

Independent Data ◽

Trial Management ◽

Independent Data Monitoring Committee ◽

The Third ◽

Monitoring Committee ◽

Oversight Committee ◽

Trial Oversight

Background/aims: Clinical trial oversight is central to the safety of participants and production of robust data. The United Kingdom Medical Research Council originally set out an oversight structure comprising three committees in 1998. The first committee, led by the trial team, is hands-on with trial conduct/operations (‘Trial Management Group’) and essential. The second committee (Data Monitoring Committee), usually completely independent of the trial, reviews accumulating trial evidence and is used by most later phase trials. The Independent Data Monitoring Committee makes recommendations to the third oversight committee. The third committee, (‘Trial Steering Committee’), facilitates in-depth interactions of independent and non-independent trial members and gives broader oversight (blinded to comparative analysis). We investigated the roles and functioning of the third oversight committee with multiple research methods. We reflect upon these findings to standardise the committee’s remit and operation and to potentially increase its usage. Methods: We utilised findings from our recent published suite of research on the third oversight committee to inform guideline revision. In brief, we conducted a survey of 38 United Kingdom–registered Clinical Trials Units, reviewed a cohort of 264 published trials, observed 8 third oversight committee meetings and interviewed 52 trialists. We convened an expert panel to discuss third oversight committees. Subsequently, we interviewed nine patient/lay third committee members and eight committee Chairs. Results: In the survey, most Clinical Trials Units required a third committee for all their trials (27/38, 71%) with independent members (ranging from 1 to 6). In the survey and interviews, the independence of the third committee was valued to make unbiased consideration of Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommendations and to advise on trial progress, protocol changes and recruitment issues in conjunction with the trial leadership. The third committee also advised funders and sponsors about trial continuation and represented patients and the public by including lay members. Of the cohort of 264 published trials, 144 reported a ‘steering’ committee (55%), but the independence of these members was not described so these may have been internal Trial Management Groups. Around two thirds of papers (60%) reported having an Independent Data Monitoring Committee and 26.9% neither a steering nor an Independent Data Monitoring Committee. However, before revising the third committee charter (Terms of Reference), greater standardisation is needed around defining member independence, composition, primacy of decision-making, interactions with other committees and the lifespan. Conclusion: A third oversight committee has benefits for trial oversight and conduct, and a revised charter will facilitate greater standardisation and wider adoption.

Download Full-text