4.5 Article

Current status of JACIE accreditation in Europe: a special report from the Joint Accreditation Committee of the ISCT and the EBMT (JACIE)

期刊

BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
卷 39, 期 3, 页码 133-141

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bmt.1705564

关键词

transplant; accreditation; standards; inspection; regulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

JACIE (Joint Accreditation Committee of the ISCT and the EBMT) launch ed its first official inspection programme in January 2004. Since then, 35 centres in Europe have been inspected. Almost all were found to be functioning at a high level of excellence, with the majority having only minor deficiencies in compliance with the standards. In one-third of centres there were more significant deficiencies. The most common deficiencies were in quality management, and a survey of the applicant centres confirmed this was the area where centres experienced most difficulty in preparation for accreditation. Following correction of deficiencies, 28 centres have at the time of writing achieved full accreditation. Implementation of JACIE required a significant investment of time and resources by applicant centres. The majority required at least 18 months to prepare for accreditation and 85% needed to employ a quality manager and/or data manager on an ongoing basis. However, all centres felt their programme had benefited from the implementation of JACIE. In addition to the inspection and accreditation of individual centres, JACIE maintains an educational programme including training courses for inspectors and for centre preparation. JACIE is also working closely with other international organisations working in cellular therapy to develop international standards for all aspects of stem cell transplant. The recent implementation of Directive 2004/23/EC has provided an impetus for the implementation of JACIE in EU member states and in particular the requirements for safety of imported tissues and cells have emphasised the need for global harmonisation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据