The DH is putting together a scheme to accredit information providers like MCF and (eventually) charge for the kitemark which will cover all sources of health and social service information (websites, leaflets, etc)! It might affect us if everyone else joins but us. This scheme is designed to provide a nationally recognised way to reassure people that the health and social care information they access has come from a reliable source. The scheme is entering the final stages of development and it is intended that, subject to Ministers approval, the scheme be fully implemented and launched in 2008.

The public will be reassured through a quality mark. This enables the scheme to have a broad impact as it can be used to mark information in any format from websites to pamphlets. The benefit of this scheme is that everybody will have access to trustworthy, relevant health and social care information - patients, the public, carers, health and social care professionals ? so that people will be able to make informed decisions about their health and social care.

THe DH are consulting on the draft Standard for information producers that will form the basis for accreditation. The consultation period for the Standard finishes at the end of August 2007. Please take an opportunity to assess the draft Standard and make your views on it known at www.iascheme.org.

Is this someone’s great idea to solve a perceived problem, generate more work that will eventually cost the taxpayer more in organisational costs? I have not found mention of the HONcode for websites.

Please read FAQs for quick overview:

Link for: more details and background

Question:
Do you think it is worth having a 'quality mark' that is not specific to the information provided but only to the provider?

Choices:
Yes
No

Question:
Do you personally need such a 'quality mark'?

Choices:
Yes
No

Question:
Did the MCF HONcode help you decide on the 'trustworthiness' of our website?

Choices:
Yes
No

Question:
Would you make your views on this scheme known at www.iascheme.org ?

Choices:
Yes
No

 

I have seen no response to this poll! I wondered why ... but then I received this email from a member which might explain the poor response

quote:

I have not recorded my opinion as requested because I have a strong bias against these schemes which I think will make my opinion invalid.

In my last job I worked for a company of 25 people with a turnover of £5million per year (UK subsidiary of a much larger German company).

We obtained accreditation to BS 5750 (ISO 9001) which formalised what we, as a well organised company, did anyway but we could not avoid this procedure because part of the system made it very difficult to deal with a company which was not accredited, so accreditation was not a matter of choice.

It took more than one year of a full time internal official’s efforts plus costs amounting to £30,000 for external help and accreditation costs, plus an annual fee of some £1500 for a system audit carried out by one or more BSI officials who travelled to Manchester from London and stayed in an upmarket hotel all at our expense.

This whole thing amounted to “jobs for the boys in extremis” an accredited company got little or nothing out of it a non accredited company lost out. A sort of legal protection racket.

As you can see I feel very strongly about passengers, only crew members earn their keep.

So, I might have to tell them that!