Search results

The purpose of this paper is to describe patient complaints and claims data from Swedish databases and assess their value for scientific research and practical health care improvement.

The article first describes previous research into patient claims and similar schemes. It then presents three types of data on patient claims and complaints in Sweden: data generated by the Patient Insurance Fund, the Medical Responsibility Board and the Patients' Advisory Committees and considers methodological issues in using the data.

The databases' value is problems related to spontaneous reporting, which makes it difficult to know how much the data correspond to general injury rates and health care patterns. Another issue is the balance between the size of study materials and the timeliness, e.g. when diagnosis‐specific analysis requires data pooling over several years in order to reach adequate case numbers. Adjustment for confounders not present in the databases, e.g. data on hospital case‐mix, may add to difficulties using the data in comparative analyses of safety performance

The databases' safety analysis and quality improvement value depends on understanding their function, data collection method and their limitations as a source of data about the true incidence and prevalence of injuries and safety problems.

This is the first thorough review of the possibilities and limitations associated with the use of claims and complaints data in health care research and improvement.

Introduction In the last decade the problem of product liability has become one of the major concerns affecting industry, consumers and government. Product liability, which relates to the responsibility of a manufacturer to compensate a user who suffers injury from using his product, is not a new concept. King Hammurabi of Babylon instituted these two laws over 4,000 years ago:

Highlights the fact that whereas, until recently, defendants in professional malpractice lawsuits were typically accountants, attorneys and physicians, potential liability for malpractice is now faced by marketing research professionals, as a result of their increasing involvement in their clients′ decisionmaking processes. Argues that the researcher′s strongest defense would be adherence to formally recognized research standards adopted by the marketing profession. Addresses the question: what is professional malpractice? Describes how it may occur in marketing research, what the new duties of the marketing research professional should be, and how professional standards could help researchers to defend malpractice claims.

A nationwide common malpractice in Zakat distribution has been prevailing in Bangladesh for the past few decades. The paper is a groundbreaking effort to investigate the perceptions of the Zakat payers about the common malpractices and to highlight whether any change in the conventional distribution of Zakat has occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic. The study also aims to extract the common perception of the Zakat payers regarding the validity of the changed practices during the pandemic.

The study adopts the qualitative research approach allowing an in-depth interview technique based on an unstructured questionnaire schedule to obtain information from the Zakat payers, complemented by the key informant interview with the Islamic Scholars. The study obtained data from Zakat payers administering a purposive sampling technique based on two specified criteria. After coding the information on three main themes, content analysis is used to examine the results.

The results reveal that although the Zakat payers dislike the common practices because of some antithetical issues, they still practice the same customs. Moreover, they apportion most of the value of Zakat in purchasing low-quality festive-motive clothes for the recipients. They are ignorant about Islamic law and the validity of such practices. According to scholars, these activities are not a pure system of Zakat provision and unable to alleviate poverty. Amid the Covid-19 pandemic, this practice shifted heavily to buying food items for the poor due to the financial hurdles they confronted during the pandemic. Although no solid argument is deduced from the participants about the exactitude of such distributional change, scholars regard the transformation as beneficial to the afflicted and the impoverished who have been hit by the pandemic, as well as not conflicting with the Zakat legislation.

The study is a novel contribution to addressing the malpractice in Zakat distribution through receiving practical information from the Zakat payers, which will help produce more in-depth research in Islamic finance. Furthermore, this research will help the government and people raise awareness about the authentic practices of Zakat distribution according to the codes of Shari’ah.

This study is a pioneering investigation since a scarcity of scholarly works attempted to identify the impact of Covid-19 on the practice of Zakat distribution and the associated perception regarding its Islamic jurisprudence. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the investigation of common malpractices of Zakat is still unearthed by no former rigorous studies in the context of Bangladesh. The present study bridges this gap and paves a pragmatic research dimension in the Islamic finance.

The purpose of this research is to investigate the relationship among jurors’ attribution of responsibility of the error, patient styles and juror decisions (e.g. acquittal of the physician). Specifically, this research examines the influence of an individual’s approach to their healthcare (active vs. passive), and decisions to acquit in malpractice cases.

In total, 459 individuals were surveyed using a commercial call center for participation in a corresponding mail survey. Surveys were also distributed to undergraduate business students at a Midwestern university.

Cluster analysis revealed two categories of patient styles: “active patients” (39.4 per cent) and “passive patients” (60.6 per cent). Regardless of patient style, this research found all respondents viewed medical error disclosure as important. However, respondents in the passive group were more likely to acquit the physician and the hospital nursing staff as compared with those classified as active.

The safety of patients in the healthcare system and prevention of errors is a critical issue. However, when errors occur, medical providers should disclose information to the patient and take responsibility to attenuate their negative impact. Further, this research reveals that patients who rely more on their physicians, trust their recommendations and question physicians less are more likely to acquit. Medical providers can use this information as motivation to continue to build this type of trust with their patients.

Medical errors are costly for all parties involved. This research provides insight for not only members of the legal profession involved in medical malpractice cases, but also risk managers and hospital administrators and healthcare providers regarding the decision-making process used by individuals serving on a jury.

Medical librarians are very comfortable in the library environment, where they research, analyze and disseminate information. But most are not as comfortable in an environment where their research methods, technique and expertise are called into question. This is an account of the activities of a medical librarian who became an expert witness in a malpractice case involving an oncology patient, and a prosecuting attorney filing suit against a prominent oncologist. As an expert witness, the testimony given by the medical librarian was based on research performed as a result of verifying 342 citations of published works included in the oncologist’s curriculum vitae. The roles that the medical librarian fulfilled, the methodology used to uncover the facts of the case, and the credibility factors that contributed to the degree of certainty of this expert witness’s testimony are illustrated in this article, where the truth – and nothing but the truth – is revealed.

This paper examines the socio-political affordances of metrics in research evaluation and the consequences of epistemic injustice in research practices and recorded knowledge.

First, the use of metrics is examined as a mechanism that promotes competition and social acceleration. Second, it is argued that the use of metrics in a competitive research culture reproduces systemic inequalities and leads to epistemic injustice. The conceptual analysis draws on works of Hartmut Rosa and Miranda Fricker, amongst others.

The use of metrics is largely driven by competition such as university rankings and league tables. Not only that metrics are not designed to enrich academic and research culture, they also suppress the visibility and credibility of works by minorities. As such, metrics perpetuate epistemic injustice in knowledge practices; at the same time, the reliability of metrics for bibliometric and scientometric studies is put into question.

As metrics leverage who can speak and who will be heard, epistemic injustice is reflected in recorded knowledge and what we consider to be information.

This paper contributes to the discussion of metrics beyond bibliometric studies and research evaluation. It argues that metrics-induced competition is antithetical to equality and diversity in research practices.

In the COVID-19 era, where blended learning is gaining popularity, research-informed teaching could be one of the alternatives or options to assess students' progress in Higher Education institutions. In the past, educators have assessed students' research skills gained from research-informed teaching through coursework components or assignments. However, whether the assignments can be converted into peer-reviewed output acceptable in a reputable journal or conference has hardly been investigated. This study explores how research-informed teaching has been rolled out in undergraduate/postgraduate BIM related modules/programmes in the School of the Built Environment, Oxford Brookes University and which has culminated in high quality published outputs.

The method used is purely qualitative in-depth interviews, where students who have published were tracked and invited to share their experiences. In total, nine former students of the 12 invited, participated in the interviews. Inductive content analysis, a suitable qualitative data analysis technique was used in analysing the feedback from the interviews.

The main finding is that research-informed teaching can be done in a technical and complex BIM discipline and students' coursework components or assignments can further be converted into published outputs.

The main limitation of this study was that the sample was small. That notwithstanding, it has provided valuable insights into the understanding of student's ability to undertake research while studying and experiences of how educators can deliver research-informed teaching to students in Higher Education institutions.

The study adds to the existing body of literature about undergraduate and postgraduate research-informed teaching and goes further to provide strong evidence through published outputs thereby confirming that students at both levels can indeed conduct and publish peer-reviewed research articles while undertaking their studies.

The purpose of this study is to examine the type of internal control weaknesses and its impact that leads to fraud activities in an oil and gas company, which is rarely found in empirical research.

A case study approach was taken to investigate and analyse the fraud incidents to the deepest understanding. A mixed method of data collection, specifically document analysis and interviews, was used.

The study found that internal control weaknesses can be major contributing factors for fraud to be committed. Poor supervision and improper documentation process provide opportunity to misappropriate the assets, worst off if it includes several people that cooperate to conduct those illegal malpractices.

The results provide further confirmation of the fraud triangle theory on the causes of the fraud, i.e. opportunity because of weak internal control. It also validates with many prior studies conducted by global professional firms such as KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Association of Certified Fraud Examiners on fraud and its related causes and implications. This study, however, was conducted on only one company with limited number of interviews.

This study provides some recommendations to improve weak internal control, which in turn will reduce opportunities of fraud committed in the company.

This study is original, as it focuses on a company that operates in the highly specialized industry, i.e. oil and gas, which is rare in fraud literature, particularly in developing markets such as Malaysia. It has examined various documents and reports of employee fraud that are generally difficult to be accessed by researchers to be finally published in an academic journal. The findings of this study are inferred from direct access of company documents that are private and confidential.

Current publication practices in the scholarly (International) Business and Management community are overwhelmingly anti-Popperian, which fundamentally frustrates the production of scientific progress. This is the result of at least five related biases: the verification, novelty, normal science, evidence, and market biases. As a result, no one is really interested in replicating anything. In this essay, the author extensively argues what he believes is wrong, why that is so, and what we might do about this. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This is an essay, combining a literature review with polemic argumentation.

Only a tiny fraction of published studies involve a replication effort. Moreover, journal authors, editors, reviewers and readers are not interested in seeing nulls and negatives in print. This replication crisis implies that Popper’s critical falsification principle is actually thrown into the scientific community’s dustbin. Behind the façade of all these so-called new discoveries, false positives abound, as do questionable research practices meant to produce all this allegedly cutting-edge and groundbreaking significant findings. If this dismal state of affairs does not change for the good, (International) Business and Management research is ending up in a deadlock.

A radical cultural change in the scientific community, including (International) Business and Management, is badly needed. It should be in the community’s DNA to engage in the quest for the “truth” – nothing more, nothing less. Such a change must involve all stakeholders: scholars, editors, reviewers, and students, but also funding agencies, research institutes, university presidents, faculty deans, department chairs, journalists, policymakers, and publishers. In the words of Ioannidis (2012, p. 647): “Safeguarding scientific principles is not something to be done once and for all. It is a challenge that needs to be met successfully on a daily basis both by single scientists and the whole scientific establishment.”

Publication practices have to change radically. For instance, editorial policies should dispose of their current overly dominant pro-novelty and pro-positives biases, and explicitly encourage the publication of replication studies, including failed and unsuccessful ones that report null and negative findings.

This is an explicit plea to change the way the scientific research community operates, offering a series of concrete recommendations what to do before it is too late.