scholarly journals Accreditation of Epilepsy Centers

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-133
Author(s):  
David M Labiner

In 2012, the Institute of Medicine recommended that a formal process be developed for the accreditation of epilepsy centers in the United States. This article provides some of the background and processes that led to the criteria by which epilepsy centers are now accredited.

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 599-603 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colton Margus ◽  
Ritu R. Sarin ◽  
Michael Molloy ◽  
Gregory R. Ciottone

AbstractIntroduction:In 2009, the Institute of Medicine published guidelines for implementation of Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) at the state level in the United States (US). Based in part on the then concern for H1N1 pandemic, there was a recognized need for additional planning at the state level to maintain health system preparedness and conventional care standards when available resources become scarce. Despite the availability of this framework, in the years since and despite repeated large-scale domestic events, implementation remains mixed.Problem:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rejuvenates concern for how health systems can maintain quality care when faced with unrelenting burden. This study seeks to outline which states in the US have developed CSC and which areas of care have thus far been addressed.Methods:An online search was conducted for all 50 states in 2015 and again in 2020. For states without CSC plans online, state officials were contacted by email and phone. Public protocols were reviewed to assess for operational implementation capabilities, specifically highlighting guidance on ventilator use, burn management, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, pediatric standards, and reliance on influenza planning.Results:Thirty-six states in the US were actively developing (17) or had already developed (19) official CSC guidance. Fourteen states had no publicly acknowledged effort. Eleven of the 17 public plans had updated within five years, with a majority addressing ventilator usage (16/17), influenza planning (14/17), and pediatric care (15/17), but substantially fewer addressing care for burn patients (9/17).Conclusion:Many states lacked publicly available guidance on maintaining standards of care during disasters, and many states with specific care guidelines had not sufficiently addressed the full spectrum of hazard to which their health care systems remain vulnerable.


2002 ◽  
Vol 91 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter R. Schumm ◽  
Farrell J. Webb ◽  
Anthony P. Jurich ◽  
Stephan R. Bollman

In April 2002, the prestigious Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences issued a final report on the safety and effectiveness of the anthrax vaccine currently in use by the United States military. It concluded that the present vaccine was completely safe and effective, but ignored evidence of several recent research studies from three different nations that have implicated vaccines, often including anthrax vaccine, in the epidemiology of Gulf War illnesses. Omissions and limitations of that report are discussed.


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Marlin PhD

In February of this year, an expert committee of the United States Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a lengthy report in which its members reviewed diagnostic criteria and proposed a new label for chronic fatigue syndrome, also historically referred to as myalgic encephalomyelitis.1 The committee’s proposed new label for this illness is Systemic Exertion Intolerance Disease. The report refers to the fact that a sizeable population is diagnosed with this illness, which causes considerable suffering and functional impairment. Many patients also feel stigmatized because of the label chronic fatigue syndrome.


2000 ◽  
Vol 124 (11) ◽  
pp. 1674-1678 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald L. Sirota

Abstract Context.—During the past several years, more attention has been focused on the topics of medical error and patient safety than in the past. At the end of 1999, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a seminal report concerning medical error in the United States; this report will have sweeping implications for all disciplines of medicine, including pathology. Objective.—To review the major findings of the IOM report on medical error and to discuss their implications for the field of pathology. Methods.—Review of the IOM report on medical error and discussion of other relevant literature on medical error. Results.—The IOM report on medical error highlights an unacceptable rate of medical error in the United States and mandates a 50% reduction in medical error during the next 5 years. It recommends regulatory solutions to this problem, as well as organizational approaches to error reduction. It proposes both mandatory and voluntary systems for reporting of medical error. The report suggests that systems should be examined for latent flaws and that individual culpability for error should not be overemphasized. The report recommends that error-reduction strategies that have been applied to other industries should be studied and that known concepts of error reduction should be applied to medicine. Strategies that the IOM suggests can be applied to pathology. Conclusions.—Medical error occurs at an unacceptably high rate. Recommendations made in the IOM report on medical error and patient safety should be applied to the practice of pathology.


Author(s):  
Judy Foreman

In the United States alone, 100 million Americans—40 percent of adults—live in chronic pain, according to the Institute of Medicine. This is clearly an underestimate because the report does not count children, people in the military, or people in nursing homes or prisons. In fact,...


2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter A. Clark

Over the past decades the mortality rate in the United States has decreased and life expectancy has increased. Yet a number of recent studies have drawn Americans attention to the fact that racial and ethnic disparities persist in health care. It is clear that the U.S. health care system is not only flawed for many reasons including basic injustices, but may be the cause of both injury and death for members of racial and ethnic minorities.In 2002, an Institute of Medicine (IOM) report requested by Congress listed more than 100 studies documenting a wide range of disparities in the United States health care system. This report found that people belonging to racial and ethnic minorities often receive lower quality of health care than do people of European descent, even when their medical insurance coverage and income levels are the same as that of the latter.


2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (36) ◽  
pp. 5327-5347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark G. Kris ◽  
Steven I. Benowitz ◽  
Sylvia Adams ◽  
Lisa Diller ◽  
Patricia Ganz ◽  
...  

A MESSAGE FROM ASCO'S PRESIDENT Like many health professionals who care for people with cancer, I entered the field because of specific patients who touched my heart. They still do. In an effort to weave together my personal view of what the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) stands for and the purpose the organization serves, my presidential theme this year is “Patients. Pathways. Progress.” Patients come first. Caring for patients is the most important, rewarding aspect of being an oncology professional. At its best, the relationship between doctor and patient is compassionate and honest—and a relationship of mutual respect. Many professional organizations have an interest in cancer, but no other society is so focused on the entire spectrum of cancer care, education, and research. Nor is any other society as particularly interested in bringing new treatments to our patients through clinical trials as ASCO is. Clinical trials are the crux for improving treatments for people with cancer and are critical for continued progress against the disease. “Pathways” has several meanings. Some pathways are molecular—like the cancer cell's machinery of destruction, which we have only begun to understand in recent years. But there are other equally important pathways, including the pathways new therapies follow as they move from bench to bedside and the pathways patients follow during the course of their diseases. Improved understanding of these pathways will lead to new approaches in cancer care, allowing doctors to provide targeted therapies that deliver improved, personalized treatment. The best pathway for patients to gain access to new therapies is through clinical trials. Trials conducted by the National Cancer Institute's Cooperative Group Program, a nationwide network of cancer centers and physicians, represent the United States' most important pathway for accelerating progress against cancer. This year, the Institute of Medicine released a report on major challenges facing the Cooperative Group Program. Chief among them is the fact that funding for the program has been nearly flat since 2002. ASCO has called for a doubling of funding for cooperative group research within five years and supports the full implementation of the Institute of Medicine recommendations to revitalize the program. ASCO harnesses the expertise and resources of its 28,000 members to bring all of these pathways together for the greater good of patients. Progress against cancer is being made every day—measurable both in our improved understanding of the disease and in our ability to treat it. A report issued in December 2009 by the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Cancer Society, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries found that rates of new diagnoses and rates of death resulting from all cancers combined have declined significantly in recent years for men and women overall and for most racial and ethnic populations in the United States. The pace of progress can be and needs to be hastened. Much remains to be done. Sustained national investment in cancer research is needed to bring better, more effective, less toxic treatments to people living with cancer. Pathways to progress continue in the clinic as doctors strive to find the right treatments for the right patients, to understand what represents the right treatments, and to partner with patients and caregivers for access to those treatments. This report demonstrates that significant progress is being made on the front lines of clinical cancer research. But although our nation's investment in this research is paying off, we must never forget the magnitude of what lies ahead. Cancer remains the number two killer of Americans. Future progress depends on continued commitment, from both ASCO and the larger medical community. George W. Sledge Jr, MD President American Society of Clinical Oncology


Birth ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 237-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiffany A Moore Simas ◽  
Molly E Waring ◽  
Gina M T Sullivan ◽  
Xun Liao ◽  
Milagros C Rosal ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document