The journey from first inspection to quality standards (1857-2016): are we there yet?

Author:

Campbell Martin

Abstract

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.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Law,Sociology and Political Science

Reference57 articles.

1. The development of institutional care for ‘idiots and imbeciles’ in Scotland;History of Psychiatry,1997

2. Atkinson, D., Jackson, M. and Walmsley, J. (Eds) (1997), Forgotten Lives: Exploring the History of Learning Disability, BILD Publications, Kidderminster.

3. The 1815 act to regulate madhouses in Scotland: a reinterpretation;Medical History,2009

4. Bartlett, P. and Wright, D. (Eds) (1999), Outside the Walls of the Asylum: The History of Community Care 1750-2000, Athlone Press, London.

5. Failures in the system: our inability to learn from inquiries;The Journal of Adult Protection,2008

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3