Kidney transplantation from living donors is generally a safe, effective form of renal replacement therapy. When evaluating potential living donors and their intended recipients, a careful assessment process is followed in order to ensure that ethical standards are upheld. During this assessment, important medical information with serious consequences, which was not being sought as part of the donor/recipient evaluation, may be discovered. The information may or may not be relevant to the decision to donate. However, such a discovery raises the difficult questions of whether or not there is an obligation to disclose the information, to whom does the information belong, and what process should be used to resolve the issue? We present a case that forced us to confront these questions and raised issues of truth telling, autonomy, paternalism, confidentiality, and the nature of the relationship between patients and health care professionals.

In many healthcare settings, benchmarking for complex procedures has become a mandatory requirement by competent authorities, regulators, payers and patients to assure clinical performance, cost-effectiveness and safe care of patients. In several countries inside and outside Europe, benchmarking systems have been established for haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), but access is not universal. As benchmarking is now integrated into the FACT-JACIE standards, the EBMT and JACIE established a Clinical Outcomes Group (COG) to develop and introduce a universal system accessible across EBMT members. Established systems from seven European countries (United Kingdom,

No abstract

Patients' view of psychiatric care and its implications is a neglected area of inquiry, partly due to ideological factors as well as structural aspects of the National Health Service. It is acknowledged that patient satisfaction per se cannot be the major goal of the Health Services, but the path to improved welfare and treatment may be facilitated by patient satisfaction or at least by an awareness of patient opinion. Further exploration of this area is recommended.

No abstract