Medical travel has the capacity to counter increasing costs of health care by creating new markets and increased revenue for health services, potentially benefiting local populations, economies, and health-care systems. This paper is part of a broad, comprehensive project aimed at developing a global health access policy (GHAP). It presents key issues to consider in terms of ensuring economic viability, sustainability, and limiting risk to the many stakeholders involved in the rapidly expanding industry of medical travel. The noted economic and legal barriers to medical travel are based on a synthesis of themes found in an extensive review of the available literature. Economic considerations, when setting up a GHAP, include a dynamic approach to pricing that is fair to the local population. Legal considerations include the implementation of international quality standards and the protection of the rights of those traveling as well as those of local populations in recipient countries. By taking into account these opportunities, the GHAP will more adequately address existing gaps in the economic and legal regulation of medical travel.

It is essential that graphic design is visually clear and accessible. However, evidence suggests that a lack of consideration is given to visual accessibility in print-based graphic design. Furthermore, effective client-designer communication is a vital component in this. This paper investigates current graphic design practice, with regard to visual accessibility, specifically focussing on client-designer communication. A survey of 122 graphic designers and clients identified that these two groups may not be communicating with each other effectively with regard to visual accessibility, and that there is a need to develop inclusive design tools to assist them with this. This paper adds a novel contribution to our limited understanding of visual accessibility in the UK's graphic design industry.

In healthcare, various methods are available to support risk identification in risk management process. However, there is no clear evidence on their contribution to risk identification. In this study, different methods used to support risk identification were therefore analysed to compare their contribution to overall risk identification. The study was conducted at Cambridge University Hospitals Foundation Trust, UK. Three main methods were selected to compare their support in risk identification: incident reports through their Risk Management Information System, risk registers through their Risk Registers system, and safety walkabouts through their internal patient safety assessment process. Where possible, simple comparison tests were run between the different methods of identifying risks as well as by the type of risks identified. It was found that each method has contributed to the risk identification by adding different sets of risk sources despite some overlaps. However, they produced discrete assessments from different aspects and none of them, on its own, could produce adequate results for effective risk identification. In any healthcare setting, having a system to put all risk information in one picture would help maximise the contribution of each method within the scope risk management process. Future studies may benefit from broader use of multiple and system-based risk identification approaches, and coding methods for more powerful analytical test.