Adverse feedback sequences in exploited marine systems: Are deliberate interruptive actions warranted?

Several mechanisms for self-enhancing feedback instabilities in marine ecosystems are identified and briefly elaborated. It appears that adverse phases of operation may be abruptly triggered by explosive breakouts in abundance of one or more previously suppressed populations. Moreover, an evident capacity of marine organisms to accomplish extensive geographic habitat expansions may expand and perpetuate a breakout event. This set of conceptual elements provides a framework for interpretation of a sequence of events that has occurred in the Northern Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (off south-western Africa). This history can illustrate how multiple feedback loops might interact with one another in unanticipated and quite malignant ways, leading not only to collapse of customary resource stocks but also to degradation of the ecosystem to such an extent that disruption of customary goods and services may go beyond fisheries alone to adversely affect other major global ecosystem concerns (e.g. proliferations of jellyfish and other slimy, stingy, toxic and/or noxious organisms, perhaps even climate change itself, etc.). The wisdom of management interventions designed to interrupt an adverse mode of feedback operation is pondered. Research pathways are proposed that may lead to improved insights needed: (i) to avoid potential 'triggers' that might set adverse phases of feedback loop operation into motion; and (ii) to diagnose and properly evaluate plausible actions to reverse adverse phases of feedback operation that might already have been set in motion. These pathways include the drawing of inferences from available 'quasi-experiments' produced either by short-term climatic variation or inadvertently in the course of biased exploitation practices, and inter-regional applications of the comparative method of science.

Public reporting of hospital outcomes based on administrative data: risks and opportunities

In the wake of findings from the Bundaberg Hospital and Forster inquiries in Queensland, periodic public release of hospital performance reports has been recommended. A process for developing and releasing such reports is being established by Queensland Health, overseen by an independent expert panel. This recommendation presupposes that public reports based on routinely collected administrative data are accurate; that the public can access, correctly interpret and act upon report contents; that reports motivate hospital clinicians and managers to improve quality of care; and that there are no unintended adverse effects of public reporting. Available research suggests that primary data sources are often inaccurate and incomplete, that reports have low predictive value in detecting outlier hospitals, and that users experience difficulty in accessing and interpreting reports and tend to distrust their findings.