Plan for Implementation of AICPA Voluntary Program for Reviews of Quality Control Procedures of Mulit-Office Firms

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_guides/1779/thumbnail.jp

Guide to implement the voluntary quality control review program for CPA firms; Performing and reporting on quality control compliance reviews; Discussion draft (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants), 1977, October 28

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_sop/1752/thumbnail.jp

Guide to implement the voluntary quality control review program for CPA Firms; Quality control policies and procedures for participation CPA firms

https://egrove.olemiss.edu/aicpa_comm/1097/thumbnail.jp

Updated framework on quality and safety in emergency medicine

Objectives Quality and safety of emergency care is critical. Patients rely on emergency medicine (EM) for accessible, timely and high-quality care in addition to providing a ‘safety-net’ function. Demand is increasing, creating resource challenges in all settings. Where EM is well established, this is recognised through the implementation of quality standards and staff training for patient safety. In settings where EM is developing, immense system and patient pressures exist, thereby necessitating the availability of tiered standards appropriate to the local context.Methods The original quality framework arose from expert consensus at the International Federation of Emergency Medicine (IFEM) Symposium for Quality and Safety in Emergency Care (UK, 2011). The IFEM Quality and Safety Special Interest Group members have subsequently refined it to achieve a consensus in 2018.Results Patients should expect EDs to provide effective acute care. To do this, trained emergency personnel should make patient-centred, timely and expert decisions to provide care, supported by systems, processes, diagnostics, appropriate equipment and facilities. Enablers to high-quality care include appropriate staff, access to care (including financial), coordinated emergency care through the whole patient journey and monitoring of outcomes. Crowding directly impacts on patient quality of care, morbidity and mortality. Quality indicators should be pragmatic, measurable and prioritised as components of an improvement strategy which should be developed, tailored and implemented in each setting.Conclusion EDs globally have a remit to deliver the best care possible. IFEM has defined and updated an international consensus framework for quality and safety

The role of 'confounding by indication' in assessing the effect of quality of care on disease outcomes in general practice: results of a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: In quality of care research, limited information is found on the relationship between quality of care and disease outcomes. This case-control study was conducted with the aim to assess the effect of guideline adherence for stroke prevention on the occurrence of stroke in general practice. We report on the problems related to a variant of confounding by indication, that may be common in quality of care studies. METHODS: Stroke patients (cases) and controls were recruited from the general practitioner's (GP) patient register, and an expert panel assessed the quality of care of cases and controls using guideline-based review criteria. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients was assessed. Compared to patients without shortcomings in preventive care, patients who received sub-optimal care appeared to have a lower risk of experiencing a stroke (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.53). This result was partly explained by the presenc

Cost-analysis of XELOX and FOLFOX4 for treatment of colorectal cancer to assist decision-making on reimbursement

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>XELOX (capecitabine + oxaliplatin) and FOLFOX 4 (5-FU + folinic acid + oxaliplatin) have shown similar improvements in survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). A US cost-minimization study found that the two regimens had similar costs from a healthcare provider perspective but XELOX had lower costs than FOLFOX4 from a societal perspective, while a Japanese cost-effectiveness study found XELOX had superior cost-effectiveness. This study compared the costs of XELOX and FOLFOX4 in patients with MCRC recently treated in two oncology departments in Hong Kong.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cost data were collected from the medical records of 60 consecutive patients (30 received XELOX and 30 FOLFOX4) from two hospitals. Drug costs, outpatient visits, hospital days and investigations were recorded and expressed as cost per patient from the healthcare provider perspective. Estimated travel and time costs were included in a societal perspective analysis. All costs were classed as either scheduled (associated with planned chemotherapy and follow-up) or unscheduled (unplanned visits or admissions and associated tests and medicines). Costs were based on government and hospital sources and expressed in US dollars (US$).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>XELOX patients received an average of 7.3 chemotherapy cycles (of the 8 planned cycles) and FOLFOX4 patients received 9.2 cycles (of the 12 planned cycles). The scheduled cost per patient per cycle was$2,046 for XELOX and $2,152 for FOLFOX4, while the unscheduled cost was$240 and $421, respectively. Total treatment cost per patient was$16,609 for XELOX and $23,672 for FOLFOX4; the total cost for FOLFOX4 was 37$17,836 for XELOX and $27,455 for FOLFOX4. Sensitivity analyses showed XELOX was still less costly than FOLFOX4 when using full drug regimen costs, incorporating data from a US model with costs and adverse event data from their clinical trial and with the removal of oxaliplatin from both treatment arms. Capecitabine would have to cost around four times its present price in Hong Kong for the total resource cost of treatment with XELOX to equal that of FOLFOX4.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>XELOX costs less than FOLFOX4 for this patient group with MCRC from both the healthcare provider and societal perspectives.</p