The journey from first inspection to quality standards (1857-2016)
Are we there yet
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12678269 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Martin Campbell (University of St Andrews, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2017 |
| Volume | 19 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 117-129 |
| Publication date | 2017-04-28 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Journal of Adult Protection (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1466-8203 • E-ISSN: 2042-8669 |
| Publisher | Emerald Publishing Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1108/jap-10-2016-0024 |
| OpenAlex | W2608706145 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 7 |
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to qualitatively analyse the inspection and regulation of care for people with learning disabilities and mental health problems in Scotland, in two time periods. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses comparative historical research drawing on primary sources from 1857 to 1862 in the form of Annual Reports of the General Board of Commissioners in Lunacy for Scotland and associated papers, to compare inspection methods, quality standards and to identify persistent challenges to effective inspection. Findings Political, clinical and public awareness led initially to criticisms of existing care and eventually to the development of the “The Lunacy Act” of 1857. This Act resulted in the first attempts to set minimum standards of care for individuals at risk, with enforceable regulation. Some factors recur as challenges to effective practice in the inspection and regulation of care today. Practical implications There are problems of definition, reliable monitoring of quality standards and adequate, independent inspection of services that respond to unacceptable standards of care. There is a growing evidence base about best methods of inspection of services for people in care who are most at risk. These methods attempt to strike a balance between evidence- and value-based judgments. Perspectives from history may help focus resources. Originality/value This paper compares common and common challenges in two time periods to investigate what can be learned about the development of policy and practice in inspection and regulation of care
Health care · Originality · Political science · Public relations · Quality (philosophy · Set (abstract data type · Value (mathematics · Computer Science · Healthcare Quality and Management · Historical Economic and Social Studies · Historical Psychiatry and Medical Practices · Law · Medicine · Psychology
| Highly cited | No |
|---|