The delivery of ‘quality’ in transfusion medicine is addressed by considering how safe and efficacious blood, blood components, reagents, and services can be provided through the application of an effective quality assurance management system. The creation of such a system in the UK is reviewed through the development of the UK Guide to Good Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Practice from 1971 to the present. It provides simple practical guidance and standards. The UK experience shows how quality assurance has evolved, it is not offered as a model to be followed. The UK approach merged with that of the European Union from the early 1990s. The use of such a quality management system to support the application of licensing and accreditation standards relevant to the work of a modern Blood Service is considered, as are processes to learn about the effective and efficacious use of blood and blood components.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1423-0410.2006.00878.x

The value of Good Manufacturing Practice to a Blood Service in managing the delivery of quality.

Documentation and record keeping is an important aspect of healthcare practice and perioperative practice is no exception to this rule. For some time now, recording every activity or intervention that a patient receives has assisted with enhancing perioperative practice; equally, it has played a key part in resolving legal and professional incidents that have occurred. There are numerous national guidelines that uphold accurate record keeping as an intrinsic aspect to patient safety (DH 2006, HPC 2008, NMC 2008, Scottish Executive 2008, DH 2009). The intention of this article is to identify and discuss some of the more common errors associated with record keeping which may have a direct or indirect effect on practitioners' misconceptions of using electronic record systems.

Documentation and record keeping.

With artificial intelligence (AI) integrated increasingly to enhance personalized diagnosis and data-driven treatment recommendations, this analysis examines the legal sufficiency of Ghana’s Health Institutions and Facilities Act 2011 (Act 829) to address medical negligence risks from reliance on AI systems in clinical settings. The CREAC framework structures evaluating gaps where existing health regulations may lack clarity for emerging issues of accountability. Explanation contextualizes the probabilistic nature of AI inferences and how general principles of medical negligence could have ambiguous application currently if erroneous AI contributions result in patient harm. Application to a hypothetical scenario assesses if adequate protections for appropriate integration exist across developers, systems, healthcare facilities, and practitioners under applicable interpretations of existing laws. Finding liability rules insufficient absent targeted AI governance, conclusions recommend amending Act 829 in key areas to codify expectations for responsible innovation and prevent ambiguity in liability. 
This work carries scientific novelty as one of the first structured jurisdictional analyses internationally of healthcare AI accountability gaps through a legal lens. Practical significance lies in setting the stage for strengthening protections in Ghana through proposed statutory reforms that reduce uncertainty around this crucial area for quality care. The method and recommendations offer a model for modernizing medical negligence law and AI policy amidst ongoing digitization in healthcare worldwide.

Evaluating if Ghana's Health Institutions and Facilities Act 2011 (Act 829) Sufficiently Addresses Medical Negligence Risks from Integration of Artificial Intelligence Systems

Blood borne virus testing of 2250 patients in an unusual, repeated dental patient notification exercise: challenges faced and lessons learnt

A South African consumer who owns a motor vehicle will need to have it serviced at a motor vehicle service dealership. The level of service experienced by consumers is not always satisfactory, leaving the consumer dissatisfied and wanting to complain about the poor service. The complaint forums available to South African consumers can roughly be divided into two categories, namely those established under South African law (which include the National Consumer Tribunal; the National Consumer Commission; the Motor Industry Ombud of South Africa; a consumer court; an alternative dispute resolution agent; and an ordinary court); and other traditional complaint forums (which include complaint websites and complaints made to the dealer directly). When deciding on the most appropriate complaint forum, consumers must consider the following factors: the cost of and time spent on the complaint process; the complexity of the rules and procedures associated with each complaint forum; the effective functioning of each forum; and the relief that the consumer can expect to receive from the complaint forum. This study found that when measured against these factors, consumers are left with few viable complaint forums. The structure and functioning of the existing complaint forums remains far from perfect. However, inroads have been made to improve the current complaint forums. Further improvements will only be achieved through a concerted effort by all the industry players. Such collaboration between them will ensure that South African consumers in the motor vehicle service industry will be ranked amongst the best protected consumers in the world.

/pdf/consumer-complaints-and-complaint-forums-employed-in-the-k6kw1k66l2.pdf

Consumer Complaints And Complaint Forums Employed In The South African Motor Vehicle Service Industry: A Survey Of The Literature

The consumer protection act 1987

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

A. Engelhardt

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

The consumer protection act 1987