Guidelines for best practice in doctoral education

In recent years the Australian Council of Deans and Directors of Graduate Studies has become increasingly concerned about the quality and standards of doctorates, that is, PhDs, professional and other doctorates. It has become clear that PhD programs are not always of sufficient quality and that some PhD students do not receive a quality doctoral experience and outcome. Similarly, the Council has been concerned about the quality of some Australian professional and other doctorates. As a result of these concerns, the Council established a working party to prepare a set of guidelines for best practice in Australian doctoral programs. The draft guidelines are consistent with the Australian Qualifications Framework and were reviewed and refined at the last Council meeting in May, 2003. In this presentation, an overview of the guidelines is offered for further discussion and advice to the Council.

The need for best practice standards in electronic governance of patient medical records to facilitate innovation

Background : Optimising the use of electronic data offers many opportunities to health services, particularly in rural and remote areas. These include reducing the effect of distance on access to clinical information and sharing information where there are multiple service providers for a single patient. The increasing compilation of large electronic databases of patient information and the ease with which electronic information can be transferred has raised concerns about the privacy and confidentiality of such records.
Aims & rationale/Objectives : This review aims to identify legal and ethical standards for areas of electronic governance where a lack of clarity may currently impede innovation in health service delivery.
Methods : This paper describes best practices for storage and transfer of electronic patient data based on an examination of Australian legislative requirements and a review of a number of current models. This will firstly allow us to identify basic legal requirements of electronic governance as well as areas of ambiguity not fully addressed by legislation. An examination of current models will suggest recommendations for best practice in areas lacking sufficient legal guidance.
Principal findings : We have identified the following four areas of importance, and shall discuss relevant details:
1) Patients' right of ownership to electronic patient records. 2) Custodial issues with data stored in centralised health care institutions 3) IT Security, including hierarchical level access, data encryption, data transfer standards and physical security 4) Software applications usage.
Discussion : Our examination of several models of best practice for the transfer of electronic patient data, both in Australia and internationally, identifies and clarifies many unresolved issues of electronic governance. This paper will also inform future policy in this area.
Implications : Clarification will facilitate the future development of beneficial technology-based innovations by rural health services.
Presentation type : Poster

Best books of the year

This article identifies favourite publications from 2003 selected by the following writers: Tony Birch, Neal Blewett, Ian Britain, Alison Broinowski, Paul Brunton, Inga Clendinnen, Martin Duwell, Morag Fraser, Andrea Goldsmith, Kerryn Goldsworthy, Peter Goldsworthy, Bridget Griffen-Foley, Clive James, Gail Jones, Nicholas Jose, Brian McFarlane, Brenda Niall, Ros Pesman, Peter Porter, Peter Steele, Chris Wallace-Crabbe, and Robyn Williams.

Who receives the most help? The most needy or those with the best marketers? (Editorial)

Presents an editorial overview of the tussle between who is best at the receiving end- the needy or the best marketer. Adoption of traditional marketing strategies to counter challenges from charitable organizations; Development of the entire market into focusing of the product's social responsibility; Shifting of practice from effective marketing to simply generating more resources from donors; Provision of a neutral field by evaluating charities on what they do rather than their marketing strategy.