Clinical Governance Working Group

Procedure number: / UKMi-06
Procedure title: / Production of Publications

Background

A number of factors influence the level of risk associated with a publication; the aim of the publication and type of document; its intended audience; the quality of the sources used to write it and the competence of the author. Documents written on behalf of large organisations such as UKMi carry the highest risk since they are national projects. An error in a publication which forms part of a national project has implications for all organisations involved. Documents with a small, private circulation confined to named individuals (e.g. in-house formulary assessments) are of lower risk than documents which are freely circulated to a wide audience (e.g. website documents which are not under password control).

Objective/ aim of procedure

To ensure accuracy and appropriateness of content, by applying quality assurance processes to the production of different types of written information.

Risk Management Notes

Information that is inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, biased, poorly presented or in breach of confidence could result in harm to patients directly. It could also lead to legal action. Subsequent adverse publicity and unwanted media attention could result in embarrassment, diminished prestige or loss of business. Please note that the inclusion of a disclaimer within a publication does not prevent the need for the information content to be correct.

Continued: …

Procedure number: / UKMi-06
Procedure title: / Production of Publications

Procedure

Writing:

  • Produce a template for each publication type and store electronically.
  • Name each publication and ensure that an edition number, date of production, name of author(s), and intentions and any limitations are clearly visible.
  • Decide upon overall content and section headings.
  • Produce and keep a copy of a formal search strategy if appropriate.
  • Perform and record suitable data/literature searches then evaluate & summarise accordingly.
  • Add draft number in the footer/header so that the most up to date version is used
  • Include statement to the effect that the information content was current at the time of publication – use the latest literature to avoid any errors.
  • Also include a statement such as “Please ensure you are using the most up to date version of this document”.
  • Store draft versions electronically in a separate folder to the final version plus suggestions that led to the changes.
  • Ensure that the production of regular and one-off publications is described in the author’s and checker’s job description.

Checking:

  • Produce and complete QA sheets for each publication – see template overleaf.
  • Define and implement competencies for authors and checkers of each publication type – consider using two checkers for higher risk publications.
  • Have accreditation procedures for authors in Regional centres/those with a higher/more sensitive output.
  • Have a system of final checking if producing a publication in a format other than that originally worked on eg. pdf, html.
  • Identify a route of informing people about any errors picked up after distribution of publication.
  • Consider the wider implications of publications as well as those of a clinical nature and use this to inform your choice of checkers.

Continued: …

Procedure number: / UKMi-06
Procedure title: / Production of Publications – Quality Assurance Checklist

Record Retention:

  • All drafts, comments, correspondence, references, search strategies and QA sheets for each publication to be stored for two years or a suitable length of time after completion.

Continued: …

Date of Issue:

Review Date:

Version Number:

This version adapted by:(Name)(Signed)

This version approved by:(Name)(Signed)

Date:

Template Approved by: UKMi Clinical Governance Working Group

Clinical Governance Working Group

Procedure number: / UKMi-06
Procedure title: / Production of Publications – Quality Assurance Checklist

(Adapt according to nature of each publication and perceived risk – use

one sheet for each separate publication title).

Publication title ...... Date......

Name of author ...... Name of checker ......

Position of author………………………………..Position of checker………………………………..

Criteria / Author
initials / 1st Checker
initials / 2nd Checker
initials
1 / Standard template has been used for this publication title.
2 / A relevant & comprehensive literature search has been carried out.
Attach separate copy of literature search including search strategy & date search carried out.
3 / References have been obtained and stored for future referral, along with any relevant correspondence. See Production of Publications SOP for further details on retention of records.
4 / Text has been proof read and has been checked for:
a) typographical errors (the spell-check facility should be used).
b) grammatical errors and good flow of language.
c) clarity & logical organisation.
5 / The text can be verified from the references.
6 / A clinical expert has been consulted where appropriate Their suggestions have been incorporated (author must be able to justify any comments not incorporated).
7 / Any controversial claims, opinions or those open to interpretation are supported by appropriate evidence. Legal advice taken if necessary.
8 / All content (text, graphs & pictures) complies with copyright regulations – permission obtained & original author acknowledged where appropriate.
9 / References have been quoted in the Vancouver format.
10 / Reference numbers in the text are consecutive & bibliography is complete.
11 / References in the bibliography correspond to the appropriate number in the text.
12 / The information is suitable to be made available to the audience likely to view it.
13 / This publication has a specified circulation list

Date of Issue:

Review Date:

Version Number:

This version adapted by:(Name)(Signed)

This version approved by:(Name)(Signed)

Date:

Template Approved by: UKMi Clinical Governance Working Group