The influence of standards and clinical guidelines on prosthetic and orthotic service quality : a scoping review

OBJECTIVES: Standards and guidelines are an integral part of prosthetic and orthotic service delivery in the developed world underpinned by an assumption that they lead to improved services. Implementing them has a cost, however, and that cost needs to be justified, particularly in resource-limited environments. This scoping review thus asks the question, "What is the evidence of the impact of standards and guidelines on service delivery outcomes in prosthetics and orthotics?" MATERIALS AND METHODS: A structured search of three electronic databases (Medline, Scopus and Web of Science) followed by manual searching of title, abstract and full text, yielded 29 articles. RESULTS: Four categories of papers were identified: Descriptions and Commentaries (17 papers), Guideline Development (7), Guideline Testing (2) and Standards implementation (3). No articles were explicitly designed to assess the impact of standards and guidelines on service delivery outcomes in prosthetics and orthotics. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Studies tended to be commentaries on or descriptions of guideline development, testing or implementation of standards. The literature is not sufficiently well developed to warrant the cost and effort of a systematic review. Future primary research should seek to demonstrate whether and how guidelines and standards improve the outcomes for people that require prostheses, orthoses and other assistive devices. Implications for Rehabilitation International Standards and Clinical Guidelines are now an integral part of clinical service provision in prosthetics and orthotics in the developed world. Complying with standards and guidelines has a cost and, particularly in resource-limited environments, it should be possible to justify this in terms of the resulting benefits. This scoping review concludes that there have been no previous studies designed to directly quantify the effects of implementing standards and guidelines on service delivery

EFSA BIOHAZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Biologicial Hazards), 2013. Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (solipeds)

A risk ranking process identified Trichinella spp. as the most relevant biological hazard in the context of meat inspection of domestic solipeds. Without a full and reliable soliped traceability system, it is considered that either testing all slaughtered solipeds for Trichinella spp., or inactivation meat treatments (heat or irradiation) should be used to maintain the current level of safety. With regard to general aspects of current meat inspection practices, the use of manual techniques during current post-mortem soliped meat inspection may increase microbial cross-contamination, and is considered to have a detrimental effect on the microbiological status of soliped carcass meat. Therefore, the use of visual-only inspection is suggested for “non-suspect” solipeds. For chemical hazards, phenylbutazone and cadmium were ranked as being of high potential concern. Monitoring programmes for chemical hazards should be more flexible and based on the risk of occurrence, taking into account Food Chain Information (FCI), covering the specific on-farm environmental conditions and individual animal treatments, and the ranking of chemical substances, which should be regularly updated and include new hazards. Sampling, testing and intervention protocols for chemical hazards should be better integrated and should focus particularly on cadmium, phenylbutazone and priority “essential substances” approved for treatment of equine animals. Implementation and enforcement of a more robust and reliable identification system throughout the European Union is needed to improve traceability of domestic solipeds. Meat inspection is recognised as a valuable tool for surveillance and monitoring of animal health and welfare conditions. If visual only post-mortem inspection is implemented for routine slaughter, a reduction in the detection of strangles and mild cases of rhodococcosis would occur. However, this was considered unlikely to affect the overall surveillance of both diseases. Improvement of FCI and traceability were considered as not having a negative effect on animal health and welfare surveillance

GMOs in animal agriculture: time to consider both costs and benefits in regulatory evaluations

In 2012, genetically engineered (GE) crops were grown by 17.3 million farmers on over 170 million hectares. Over 70% of harvested GE biomass is fed to food producing animals, making them the major consumers of GE crops for the past 15 plus years. Prior to commercialization, GE crops go through an extensive regulatory evaluation. Over one hundred regulatory submissions have shown compositional equivalence, and comparable levels of safety, between GE crops and their conventional counterparts. One component of regulatory compliance is whole GE food/feed animal feeding studies. Both regulatory studies and independent peer-reviewed studies have shown that GE crops can be safely used in animal feed, and rDNA fragments have never been detected in products (e.g. milk, meat, eggs) derived from animals that consumed GE feed. Despite the fact that the scientific weight of evidence from these hundreds of studies have not revealed unique risks associated with GE feed, some groups are calling for more animal feeding studies, including long-term rodent studies and studies in target livestock species for the approval of GE crops. It is an opportune time to review the results of such studies as have been done to date to evaluate the value of the additional information obtained. Requiring long-term and target animal feeding studies would sharply increase regulatory compliance costs and prolong the regulatory process associated with the commercialization of GE crops. Such costs may impede the development of feed crops with enhanced nutritional characteristics and durability, particularly in the local varieties in small and poor developing countries. More generally it is time for regulatory evaluations to more explicitly consider both the reasonable and unique risks and benefits associated with the use of both GE plants and animals in agricultural systems, and weigh them against those associated with existing systems, and those of regulatory inaction. This would represent a shift away from a GE evaluation process that currently focuses only on risk assessment and identifying ever diminishing marginal hazards, to a regulatory approach that more objectively evaluates and communicates the likely impact of approving a new GE plant or animal on agricultural production systems