Search results

This paper aims to better understand auditing practices as a social phenomenon and management practice through a comparative historical analysis of the emergence of statutory auditing in three European countries, namely, France, Great Britain and Germany between 1844 and 1935.

The authors’ approach is a comparative history relying on a literature review, books pertaining to the period of interest and relevant archives.

The three countries’ trajectories were similar. All featured the promulgation of acts at the second half of the 19th century, the development of the accounting profession and the introduction of new acts to further strengthen statutory auditing around the Great Depression. However, each country took a different path because of the degree of regulation. For instance, the regulation strength and the degree of professionalism differed considerably by country. Business secrecy was also a departure point; it ranged from the rejection of auditors as intruders in France to Germany’s exclusively internal auditing and the UK’s peer auditing. The countries also differed on perceptions of the auditor’s role. Auditors were seen through the lens of a general interest mission in France, as advisors to internal governance bodies in Germany and as shareholders’ agents in Great Britain.

This paper compares three main European countries in the specific context of the introduction of statutory auditing. The findings of this paper are helpful for the international harmonization of auditing standards, as the derived insights provide a better understanding of the differences in the standards’ implementation.

COVID-19 has caused unprecedented disruption to health systems. There is much to be gained by capturing what was learned from changes and adaptations made by health services and systems. The Ministry of Health in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, sought to prioritise health services research (HSR) to address critical issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. We tested a priority setting methodology to create priorities for a specific funding opportunity and to extract generalisable lessons.

A virtual roundtable meeting of key stakeholders was held in June 2020. We used a modified Nominal Group Technique (NGT) for priority setting, with potential items (n = 35) grouped under headings. Data was analysed through a reflective deliberative process.

We engaged 89 senior policy makers, health service executives, clinicians and researchers in the roundtable. The NGT proved an efficient method with participants reaching consensus on eight priorities. Findings included strong support for learning from the rapid response to COVID-19 and addressing needs of vulnerable populations and the health workforce. Opinions differed about strategic areas investment and where learnings should be via internal evaluation rather than funded research. Three of the eight recommended priorities were included in the funding opportunity.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) required unprecedented change and adaptations within health systems, and rapid, applied health services research can help to create, understand and (where relevant) sustain change beyond the immediate impact of the pandemic. While final decisions may be dependent on a wider range of considerations by government, stakeholder enthusiasm for engagement in priority setting exercises may be dampened if they do not perceive their application in decision-making.

A modified nominal group technique can be used to set research priorities in constrained conditions by engaging large numbers of stakeholders in rankings and then using an online delivery of a roundtable and to reach consensus on priorities in real time. Recommended priorities for health services research can be readily generated through rapid engagement but does not guarantee their application.

Australia’s swift response to COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 was perceived as a relative success due to the rapid public health and policy response and a relatively low number of cases. This response was underpinned by systematic knowledge mobilisation including support for targeted and prioritised health services research to fill knowledge gaps.

Setting priority processes can provide rich, engaged input to support government funding decisions about HSR. A wide range of dynamic and iterative processes influence decision-making in a rapidly evolving situation in the health system response to COVID-19. It is crucial to consider how major investment decisions will support a value-based healthcare system.