The Experts below are selected from a list of 165 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Stacey Lang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • abstract w p292 a comparative analysis of the requirements for certification of stroke programs by type and by nationally recognized Certifying Body
    Stroke, 2014
    Co-Authors: Stacey Lang
    Abstract:

    Background and Purpose: There are currently three main, nationally recognized organizations that certify facilities as primary or comprehensive stroke centers. One of these organizations also offers a “Stroke Ready” designation. While each of these organizations share many of the same requirements, there are likewise many unique requirements between Certifying bodies with respect to the certification requirements, process, performance, and on-going expectations. All should be considered when choosing a partner for certification by organizations that are committed to achieving an appropriate level of certification as determined by clinical capabilities. Differences in core measure requirements and definitions, data collection expectations and re-certification cycles among other factors are often overlooked when stroke program leaders are identifying the best certification partner for their particular organization. This poster will detail the similarities and differences among the various stroke program Certifying organizations and present a detailed methodology to assist program leaders with the partner selection process. Methods: The three stroke program Certifying organizations were examined for review cycles, levels of certification offered, requirements related to hospital certifications, and reportable core measures. Other factors such as cost, the actual certification process, and other considerations that may impact the successful achievement of certification within a particular organization were also reviewed. Results/Conclusion: While there are many similarities in the stroke center certification requirements and processes among the three Certifying organizations, there are also significant differences. In order to ensure that the end product of a journey to certification will align with a hospital’s values, budget, and vision for the stroke program, an evaluation process in advance of Certifying Body selection is essential. Awareness of the similarities and differences among the stroke certification organizations can facilitate a hospital’s decision-making process for pursuit of certification as a stroke ready center, primary stroke center or comprehensive stroke center

Anca Atanase - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • BEST PRACTICES GOOD PRACTICES IN THE THIRD PARTY AUDITS OF THE SYSTEMS OF QUALITY MANAGEMENT ACCORDING TO TÜV CERT REQUIREMENTS
    2020
    Co-Authors: Anca Atanase
    Abstract:

    The third party audit of the systems of quality management may be performed by quality auditors, who represent a certain Certifying Body, fulfilling the rules of good practice provided therein. Being the interface between the Certifying Body and audited clients / organisations in different fields of activity, the auditors are selected and trained permanently with a view to improve their performance and implicitly the image of Certifying Body. The objectives of the article are to present the rules applied within international Certifying bodies, from the perspective of that involved directly for almost ten years in this activity, simultaneously with university activity. With respect to the manner of collecting the information, the article relies on the experience of the author in the capacity of third party auditor, competent in the following fields: education, research, trade, tourism, services. The practical issues emphasized in the article refer to the rules appropriated by third party auditors within famous international Certifying bodies TUV Rheinland and respectively TUV Austria, where the author of the article began and respectively carries out his activity currently. Their image and fame is due to the rules of good practice, fulfilled in these Certifying bodies for over 130 years. The article presents the stages of theoretical and practical formation of an auditor, the objectives to be reached on each stage of preparation, what his activity involves within the Certifying Body, the collaboration with the other auditors, permanent training and experience exchanges during the international conferences organised by Certifying bodies, practice of audit, possibility of maintaining as auditor and advancing as chief auditor, the status of third party auditor.

  • Good Practices In The Third Party Audits Of The Systems Of Quality Management According To TÜV Cert Requirements
    The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, 2020
    Co-Authors: Anca Atanase
    Abstract:

    The third party audit of the systems of quality management may be performed by quality auditors, who represent a certain Certifying Body, fulfilling the rules of good practice provided therein. Being the interface between the Certifying Body and audited clients / organisations in different fields of activity, the auditors are selected and trained permanently with a view to improve their performance and implicitly the image of Certifying Body. The objectives of the article are to present the rules applied within international Certifying bodies, from the perspective of that involved directly for almost ten years in this activity, simultaneously with university activity. With respect to the manner of collecting the information, the article relies on the experience of the author in the capacity of third party auditor, competent in the following fields: education, research, trade, tourism, services. The practical issues emphasized in the article refer to the rules appropriated by third party auditors within famous international Certifying bodies TUV Rheinland and respectively TUV Austria, where the author of the article began and respectively carries out his activity currently. Their image and fame is due to the rules of good practice, fulfilled in these Certifying bodies for over 130 years. The article presents the stages of theoretical and practical formation of an auditor, the objectives to be reached on each stage of preparation, what his activity involves within the Certifying Body, the collaboration with the other auditors, permanent training and experience exchanges during the international conferences organised by Certifying bodies, practice of audit, possibility of maintaining as auditor and advancing as chief auditor, the status of third party auditor.

Jean S Kane - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • experience of the international association of geoanalysts as a Certifying Body
    Geostandards and Geoanalytical Research, 2010
    Co-Authors: Jean S Kane
    Abstract:

    Reference materials (RMs) to support geoanalysis have a long history, dating back to the issuance of G-1 and W-1 in 1951. This paper addresses only one aspect of the most recent part of that history, the experience of the International Association of Geoanalysts (IAG) as a Certifying Body. In 2002, the Certification Committee of the IAG met in Potsdam to discuss becoming a Certifying Body able to produce RMs for the geoanalytical community. Following that meeting, the IAG developed and published a protocol to assure that IAG RMs would meet International Organization for Standardization (ISO) guidelines to the fullest extent possible. Many practical problems arise in the application of the recommendations of the ISO Guides to any one specific certification project. The recommendations describe the ideal; achievable reality is always somewhat less than that ideal, presenting a significant challenge to the IAG as a Certifying Body. This paper will summarise experience to date, while focusing on the most challenging issues, deriving uncertainties compliant with the Guide to Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) and establishing traceability of certified values (CVs). Les materiaux de reference servant de support au programme «Geoanalysis» ont une longue histoire, remontant a l’emission de G-1 et W-1 en 1951. Le present article ne porte que sur un aspect de la partie la plus recente de cette histoire, l’experience de l’Association internationale des Geoanalystes (IAG) comme organisme de certification. En 2002, le Comite de certification de l’IAG s’est reuni a Potsdam pour discuter de son evolution comme organisme de certification en mesure de produire des materiaux de reference pour la communaute des geoanalytistes. Suite a cette reunion, l’IAG a elabore et publie un protocole pour garantir que les materiaux de reference IAG etaient le plus possible en accord avec les directives de l’Organisation internationale de normalisation (ISO). De nombreux problemes pratiques se posent dans l’application des recommandations des guides ISO a tout projet de certification specifique. Les recommandations decrivent l’ideal, la realite pouvant etre atteinte etant toujours un peu eloignee de cet ideal, et representent donc un defi important pour l’IAG en temps qu’organisme de certification. Cet article resume l’experience acquise jusqu’ici, tout en se concentrant sur les questions les plus difficiles, decoulant des incertitudes compatibles avec le Guide de l’incertitude dans la mesure (GUM) et de l’etablissement de la tracabilite des valeurs certifiees (CVs).

Lisa Bonsall - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Staceylang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Abstract W P292: A Comparative Analysis of the Requirements for Certification of Stroke Programs, by Type and by Nationally Recognized Certifying Body
    Stroke, 2014
    Co-Authors: Staceylang
    Abstract:

    Background and Purpose: There are currently three main, nationally recognized organizations that certify facilities as primary or comprehensive stroke centers. One of these organizations also offers a “Stroke Ready” designation. While each of these organizations share many of the same requirements, there are likewise many unique requirements between Certifying bodies with respect to the certification requirements, process, performance, and on-going expectations. All should be considered when choosing a partner for certification by organizations that are committed to achieving an appropriate level of certification as determined by clinical capabilities. Differences in core measure requirements and definitions, data collection expectations and re-certification cycles among other factors are often overlooked when stroke program leaders are identifying the best certification partner for their particular organization. This poster will detail the similarities and differences among the various stroke program cer...