Browsing by Author "Scott, R. N."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Lessons For Researchers From The Canadian Thalidomide Experience
    (1995) Scott, R. N.
    In 1963, in the face of public outcry, the Canadian govenunent announced that the "Thalidomide Problem" would be "solved" by an armual grant of $200 000. This sum was to cover three new prosthetics research and training centres, in Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg, and prosthetics research here at UNB. There was much criticism of that initiative, initially because the sum was too small and the objective too gr andiose, most recently in litigation by the Thalidomide Survivors Association. But direct results include the Rehabilitation Engineering Department of the Hugh MacMillan Rehabilitation Centre, substantial continuing prosthetics research programs at l'Institut de Readaptation de Montreal and at the Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, and the UNB Institute of Biomedical Engineering All have contributed significantly to the intz oduction of science and technology into the craft of prosthetics, and to the development of prosthetics systems and devices in wide clinical use. We should be alert to the possibility that there will be other opportunities to derive substantial benefit from initiatives which are ill-conceived or inadequate.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Why Meaningful Outcome Studies Are Imperative
    (1994) Scott, R. N.
    Probably every rehabilitation professional began his or her involvement in the field with an attempt to do something which clearly appeared to be "a good thing" for a specific client or group of clients. Probably most of us have stayed in the field because of a desire to continue to do "good things" This is to be commended; at one time it was sufficient to enswe our continued employment and the acceptance of our output by government or other funding agencies. But we cannot afford the level of health care to which we have become accustomed, and as the level of service entitlement is reduced the criteria for approval of any device or service becomes more stringent. Rehabilitation devices, systems and techniques no longer will be approved simply because we recommend them and the clients demand them; because they are "good things". In North America, on both sides of the 49th parallel, the latest fashion is "Managed Health Care" Stripped of the rhetoric from which consultants are linng their pockets, managed health care simply means that we are losing the right to determine what we shall do with someone else's money. Both government and private sector health care insurance plans are limiting available benefits to a degree considered impossible a few years ago Regretably, preventive and rehabilitation measures seem to be targeted for particularly drastic reduction To ensure that any service or device will survive on the list of remaining entitlements, two requirements must be met. First, it must be proven to be cost effective, in the sense that removing it from the list will increase cost to the funding agency. Second, the evidence of this cost effectiveness must be placed before the funding agency effectively. But we don't have such evidence. For some time now, "Outcome Studies" have been on the wish lists of health care research funding agencies, but the response from the research community has been unenthusiastic. Now, valid and convincing outcome studies are of aitical importance to all of us who wish to continue to work in rehabilitation.