1.Medical school accreditation in Australia: Issues involved in assessing major changes and new programs.
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions 2011;8(1):6-
The Australian Medical Council (AMC) is an independent company for quality assurance and quality improvement in medical education in Australia and New Zealand. Accreditation procedures for the 20 medical schools in these two countries are somewhat different for three different circumstances or stages of school development: existing medical schools, established courses undergoing major changes, and new schools. This paper will outline some issues involved in major changes to existing courses, and new medical school programs. Major changes have included change from a 6 year undergraduate course to a 5 year undergraduate course or 4 year graduate-entry course, introduction of a lateral graduate-entry stream, new domestic site of course delivery, offshore course delivery, joint program between two universities, and major change to curriculum. In the case of a major change assessment, accreditation of the new or revised course may be granted for a period up to two years after the full course has been implemented. In the assessment of proposals for introduction of new medical courses, six issues needing careful consideration have arisen: forward planning, academic staffing, adequate clinical experience, acceptable research program, adequacy of resources, postgraduate training program and employment.
Accreditation
;
Australia
;
Curriculum
;
Education, Medical
;
Employment
;
Financing, Organized
;
Humans
;
Joints
;
New Zealand
;
Quality Improvement
;
Rivers
;
Schools, Medical
5.Factors Influencing Nerinetide Effect on Clinical Outcome in Patients Without Alteplase Treatment in the ESCAPE-NA1 Trial
Mayank GOYAL ; Bijoy K. MENON ; Johanna OSPEL ; Mohammed ALMEKHLAFI ; Charlotte ZERNA ; Raul NOGUEIRA ; Ryan MCTAGGART ; Andrew M. DEMCHUK ; Alexandre Y. POPPE ; Brian BUCK ; Kathy HEARD ; Manish JOSHI ; Diogo HAUSSEN ; Shawna CUTTING ; Shelagh B. COUTTS ; Daniel ROY ; Jeremy L. REMPEL ; Thalia S. FIELD ; Dar DOWLATSHAHI ; Brian van ADEL ; Richard SWARTZ ; Ruchir SHAH ; Eric SAUVAGEAU ; Volker PUETZ ; Frank L. SILVER ; Bruce CAMPBELL ; René CHAPOT ; Michael TYMIANSKI ; Michael D. HILL ;
Journal of Stroke 2025;27(1):95-101
Background:
and Purpose In the ESCAPE-NA1 (Efficacy and Safety of Nerinetide for the Treatment of Acute Ischaemic Stroke) trial, treatment with nerinetide was associated with improved outcomes in patients who did not receive intravenous alteplase. We compared the effect of nerinetide on clinical outcomes in patients without concurrent intravenous alteplase treatment within different patient subgroups.
Methods:
ESCAPE-NA1 was a multicenter randomized trial in which acute stroke patients with baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) >4 undergoing endovascular treatment (EVT) were randomized to intravenous nerinetide or placebo. The primary outcome was independence (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score 0–2) at 90 days. We assessed baseline, clinical, and imaging variables as predictors of outcome and for evidence of treatment effect modification. We constructed two multivariable models using variables known prior to randomization and variables known immediately post-EVT procedure to provide adjusted estimates of effect. We assessed for evidence of treatment effect modification using multiplicative interaction terms within each model.
Results:
Four hundred forty-six patients were included in the analysis. Clinical outcomes were better in patients randomized to the nerinetide arm (mRS 0–2: 59.4% vs. 49.8%). There was possible treatment effect modification by ASPECTS score; patients with ASPECTS 8–10 showed a larger treatment effect compared to those with lower ASPECTS score. Younger age, lower NIHSS score, lower baseline serum glucose, absence of atrial fibrillation at baseline, higher ASPECTS score, middle cerebral artery (vs. internal carotid artery) occlusion, use of conscious or no sedation (vs. general anesthesia), and faster treatment were all predictors of favorable outcome.
Conclusion
Patients in the nerinetide arm who were not treated with concurrent alteplase showed improved clinical outcomes and the treatment effect was larger among patients with favorable ASPECTS profiles.
6.Factors Influencing Nerinetide Effect on Clinical Outcome in Patients Without Alteplase Treatment in the ESCAPE-NA1 Trial
Mayank GOYAL ; Bijoy K. MENON ; Johanna OSPEL ; Mohammed ALMEKHLAFI ; Charlotte ZERNA ; Raul NOGUEIRA ; Ryan MCTAGGART ; Andrew M. DEMCHUK ; Alexandre Y. POPPE ; Brian BUCK ; Kathy HEARD ; Manish JOSHI ; Diogo HAUSSEN ; Shawna CUTTING ; Shelagh B. COUTTS ; Daniel ROY ; Jeremy L. REMPEL ; Thalia S. FIELD ; Dar DOWLATSHAHI ; Brian van ADEL ; Richard SWARTZ ; Ruchir SHAH ; Eric SAUVAGEAU ; Volker PUETZ ; Frank L. SILVER ; Bruce CAMPBELL ; René CHAPOT ; Michael TYMIANSKI ; Michael D. HILL ;
Journal of Stroke 2025;27(1):95-101
Background:
and Purpose In the ESCAPE-NA1 (Efficacy and Safety of Nerinetide for the Treatment of Acute Ischaemic Stroke) trial, treatment with nerinetide was associated with improved outcomes in patients who did not receive intravenous alteplase. We compared the effect of nerinetide on clinical outcomes in patients without concurrent intravenous alteplase treatment within different patient subgroups.
Methods:
ESCAPE-NA1 was a multicenter randomized trial in which acute stroke patients with baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) >4 undergoing endovascular treatment (EVT) were randomized to intravenous nerinetide or placebo. The primary outcome was independence (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score 0–2) at 90 days. We assessed baseline, clinical, and imaging variables as predictors of outcome and for evidence of treatment effect modification. We constructed two multivariable models using variables known prior to randomization and variables known immediately post-EVT procedure to provide adjusted estimates of effect. We assessed for evidence of treatment effect modification using multiplicative interaction terms within each model.
Results:
Four hundred forty-six patients were included in the analysis. Clinical outcomes were better in patients randomized to the nerinetide arm (mRS 0–2: 59.4% vs. 49.8%). There was possible treatment effect modification by ASPECTS score; patients with ASPECTS 8–10 showed a larger treatment effect compared to those with lower ASPECTS score. Younger age, lower NIHSS score, lower baseline serum glucose, absence of atrial fibrillation at baseline, higher ASPECTS score, middle cerebral artery (vs. internal carotid artery) occlusion, use of conscious or no sedation (vs. general anesthesia), and faster treatment were all predictors of favorable outcome.
Conclusion
Patients in the nerinetide arm who were not treated with concurrent alteplase showed improved clinical outcomes and the treatment effect was larger among patients with favorable ASPECTS profiles.
7.Factors Influencing Nerinetide Effect on Clinical Outcome in Patients Without Alteplase Treatment in the ESCAPE-NA1 Trial
Mayank GOYAL ; Bijoy K. MENON ; Johanna OSPEL ; Mohammed ALMEKHLAFI ; Charlotte ZERNA ; Raul NOGUEIRA ; Ryan MCTAGGART ; Andrew M. DEMCHUK ; Alexandre Y. POPPE ; Brian BUCK ; Kathy HEARD ; Manish JOSHI ; Diogo HAUSSEN ; Shawna CUTTING ; Shelagh B. COUTTS ; Daniel ROY ; Jeremy L. REMPEL ; Thalia S. FIELD ; Dar DOWLATSHAHI ; Brian van ADEL ; Richard SWARTZ ; Ruchir SHAH ; Eric SAUVAGEAU ; Volker PUETZ ; Frank L. SILVER ; Bruce CAMPBELL ; René CHAPOT ; Michael TYMIANSKI ; Michael D. HILL ;
Journal of Stroke 2025;27(1):95-101
Background:
and Purpose In the ESCAPE-NA1 (Efficacy and Safety of Nerinetide for the Treatment of Acute Ischaemic Stroke) trial, treatment with nerinetide was associated with improved outcomes in patients who did not receive intravenous alteplase. We compared the effect of nerinetide on clinical outcomes in patients without concurrent intravenous alteplase treatment within different patient subgroups.
Methods:
ESCAPE-NA1 was a multicenter randomized trial in which acute stroke patients with baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) >4 undergoing endovascular treatment (EVT) were randomized to intravenous nerinetide or placebo. The primary outcome was independence (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score 0–2) at 90 days. We assessed baseline, clinical, and imaging variables as predictors of outcome and for evidence of treatment effect modification. We constructed two multivariable models using variables known prior to randomization and variables known immediately post-EVT procedure to provide adjusted estimates of effect. We assessed for evidence of treatment effect modification using multiplicative interaction terms within each model.
Results:
Four hundred forty-six patients were included in the analysis. Clinical outcomes were better in patients randomized to the nerinetide arm (mRS 0–2: 59.4% vs. 49.8%). There was possible treatment effect modification by ASPECTS score; patients with ASPECTS 8–10 showed a larger treatment effect compared to those with lower ASPECTS score. Younger age, lower NIHSS score, lower baseline serum glucose, absence of atrial fibrillation at baseline, higher ASPECTS score, middle cerebral artery (vs. internal carotid artery) occlusion, use of conscious or no sedation (vs. general anesthesia), and faster treatment were all predictors of favorable outcome.
Conclusion
Patients in the nerinetide arm who were not treated with concurrent alteplase showed improved clinical outcomes and the treatment effect was larger among patients with favorable ASPECTS profiles.
8.Tenecteplase Versus Alteplase in Medium Vessel Occlusion Ischemic Stroke: A Secondary Analysis of the Alteplase Compared to Tenecteplase Randomized Trial
Fouzi BALA ; Nishita SINGH ; Katrina IGNACIO ; Ibrahim ALHABLI ; Ayoola ADEMOLA ; Anas ALROHIMI ; Houman KHOSRAVANI ; Aleksander TKACH ; Luciana CATANESE ; Dariush DOWLATSHAHI ; Thalia FIELD ; Gary HUNTER ; Faysal BENALI ; MacKenzie HORN ; Andrew DEMCHUK ; Michael HILL ; Tolulope SAJOBI ; Brian BUCK ; Richard SWARTZ ; Mohammed ALMEKHLAFI ; Bijoy K. MENON
Journal of Stroke 2024;26(2):280-289
Background:
and Purpose The safety and efficacy of tenecteplase in patients with ischemic stroke due to medium vessel occlusion (MeVO) are not well studied. We aimed to compare tenecteplase with alteplase in stroke due to MeVO.
Methods:
Patients with baseline M2-middle cerebral artery (MCA), M3/M4-MCA, P2/P3/P4-posterior cerebral artery (PCA), A2/A3/A4-anterior cerebral artery (ACA) occlusions from the Alteplase Compared to Tenecteplase (AcT) trial were included. Primary outcome was the proportion of 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0–1. Secondary outcomes were 90-day mRS 0–2, ordinal mRS, mortality, quality of life measures (EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level, EuroQol visual analog scale), and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH). Initial and final successful reperfusion were reported in patients undergoing endovascular thrombectomy (EVT).
Results:
Among 1,558 patients with available baseline computed tomography angiography; 455 (29.2%) had MeVO of which 27.5% (125/455) were proximal M2; 16.3% (74/455) were distal M2; 35.2% (160/455) were M3/M4; 7.5% (34/455) were A2/A3/A4; and 13.6% (62/455) were P2/P3/P4 occlusions. EVT was performed in 87/455 (19.1%) patients. mRS 0–1 at 90 days was achieved in 37.9% in the tenecteplase versus 34.7% in the alteplase group (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91–1.25). Rates of 90-day mRS 0–2, sICH, and mortality were similar in both groups. No statistical difference was noted in initial successful reperfusion rates (13.0% vs. 7.5%) among the 87 patients who underwent endovascular thrombectomy. However, final successful reperfusion was higher in the tenecteplase group (71.7% vs. 60.0%, aRR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04–1.61).
Conclusion
Intravenous tenecteplase had comparable safety, functional outcomes and quality of life compared to intravenous alteplase among patients with MeVO. Among those treated with EVT, tenecteplase was associated with higher successful reperfusion rates than alteplase.
9.Towards universal quality health care through an independent accreditation agency: A review
Gabriel R. Borlongan ; Ma-Ann M. Zarsuelo ; Michael Antonio F. Mendoza ; Ma. Esmeralda C. Silva ; Leonardo Jr. R. Estacio
Acta Medica Philippina 2020;54(6):742-750
Background:
Guaranteeing quality of health care services is part of the objectives of Republic Act No. 11223 or the Universal Health Care (UHC) Act of 2019. In assuring that quality services are delivered by health care providers, they must be accredited to participate in the National Health Insurance Program. The UHC Act mandates the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) to recognize third party mechanisms as basis of granting incentives for health facilities that deliver services of higher quality. This review aimed to identify lessons and experiences from literature that can be adopted and contextualized in the Philippine setting, for strategic policies on strengthening the national health facility accreditation system.
Methods:
A systematic review of literature was conducted to generate evidence-based recommendations from discussions on cross country experiences and local government initiatives towards improved accreditation system.
Results:
By virtue of the UHC Act, a form of strategic purchasing is further institutionalized through a rating system that incentivizes health facilities that provide better services in terms of quality, efficiency, and equity. It is imperative to consider the country’s previous and current gaps and challenges in accreditation and adopt the best practices of other countries, as appropriate to Philippine's local settings. A tool is proposed in creating a national hospital accreditation system using the domains of leadership and governance, financing and sustainability, standards development, program management, and continuing quality improvement.
Conclusion and Recommendations
With the legitimacy of third party accreditation body mandated by the UHC Act, operationalization of the prescribed mechanisms and organizational structure must enjoin all pertinent stakeholders and be supported by sustainable funds and technical assistance by the government.
Universal Health Insurance
;
Universal Health Care
;
Insurance
;
Health Policy
;
National Health Programs
;
Accreditation
10.Addressing primary care inequities in underserved areas of the Philippines: A review
Marianne Joy N. Naria-Maritana ; Gabriel R. Borlongan ; Ma-Ann M. Zarsuelo ; Ara Karizza G. Buan ; Frances Karen A. Nuestro ; Janvic A. Dela Rosa ; Ma. Esmeralda C. Silva ; Michael Antonio F. Mendoza ; Leonardo R. Estacio
Acta Medica Philippina 2020;54(6):722-733
:
Background. Inequities in health care exist in the Philippines due to various modifiable and non-modifiable determinants. Through the years, different interventions were undertaken by the government and various stakeholders to address these inequities in primary care. However, inequities still continue to persist. The enactment of the Universal Health Care (UHC) Act aims to ensure that every Filipino will have equitable access to comprehensive and quality health care services by strengthening primary care. As a step towards UHC, the government endeavors to guarantee equity by prioritizing assistance and support to underserved areas in the country. This paper aims to review different interventions to promote equity in the underserved areas that could aid in needs assessment.
Methods:
A search through PUBMED and Google Scholar was conducted using the keywords, “inequity,” “primary care” and “Philippines.” The search yielded more than 10,000 articles which were further filtered to publication date, relevance to the topic, and credibility of source. A total of 58 full-text records were included in the review.
Results and Discussion:
In the Philippines, inequities in primary care exist in the context of health programs, facilities, human health resources, finances, and training. These were recognized by various stakeholders, from government and private sector, and nongovernment organizations, taking actions to address inequities, applying different strategies and approaches but with a shared goal of improving primary care. On another end, social accountability must also be instilled among Filipinos to address identified social and behavioral barriers in seeking primary care. With political commitment, improvement in primary care towards health equity can be achieved.
Conclusion and Recommendation
To address inequities in primary care, there is a need to ensure adequate human resources for health, facilities, supplies such as medications, vaccination, clean water, and sources of funds. Moreover, regular conduct of training on healthcare services and delivery are needed. These will capacitate health workers and government leaders with continuous advancement in knowledge and skills, to be effective providers of primary care. Institutionalizing advocacy in equity through policies in healthcare provision would help realize the aims of the Universal Health Care Act.
Philippines
;
Universal Health Care
;
Primary Health Care