A hybrid health service accreditation program model incorporating mandated standards and continuous improvement: interview study of multiple stakeholders in Australian health care

Accreditation of primary health care services: A systematic review

Accreditation of health services is one of the criteria for achieving the predetermined standards for health organizations. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic study was to investigate the primary health care (PHC) accreditation programs in the world and compile a summary of these programs in order to identify the areas and dimensions of these standards. This systematic review was conducted on online database studies, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, using comprehensive terms. The inclusion criteria included all qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method studies published in any language from 1990 to December 2022. The studies were evaluated with Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools (JBI) critical appraisal tools checklist, and finally, the data were analyzed using the framework analysis method. The findings of 10 studies that were included in this study cover four main topics regarding the functions of the health system: stewardship, resource production, financing, and service delivery, as well as 10 sub-topics: policy making, interdepartmental leadership, monitoring and evaluation, human resources, equipment and medicine, information management, gathering of financial resources, capacity to provide services, access, and quality of services. In the accreditation of PHC, in addition to paying attention to performance indicators, indicators such as satisfaction and rights of clients and employees, access, information technology, coordination, integration of care, financing, and management of resources and equipment should also be considered.

The impact of hospital accreditation on the quality of healthcare: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Accreditation is viewed as a reputable tool to evaluate and enhance the quality of health care. However, its effect on performance and outcomes remains unclear. This review aimed to identify and analyze the evidence on the impact of hospital accreditation.

METHODS

We systematically searched electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, MEDLINE (OvidSP), CDSR, CENTRAL, ScienceDirect, SSCI, RSCI, SciELO, and KCI) and other sources using relevant subject headings. We included peer-reviewed quantitative studies published over the last two decades, irrespective of its design or language. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, two reviewers independently screened initially identified articles, reviewed the full-text of potentially relevant studies, extracted necessary data, and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using a validated tool. The accreditation effects were synthesized and categorized thematically into six impact themes.

RESULTS

We screened a total of 17,830 studies, of which 76 empirical studies that examined the impact of accreditation met our inclusion criteria. These studies were methodologically heterogeneous. Apart from the effect of accreditation on healthcare workers and particularly on job stress, our results indicate a consistent positive effect of hospital accreditation on safety culture, process-related performance measures, efficiency, and the patient length of stay, whereas employee satisfaction, patient satisfaction and experience, and 30-day hospital readmission rate were found to be unrelated to accreditation. Paradoxical results regarding the impact of accreditation on mortality rate and healthcare-associated infections hampered drawing firm conclusions on these outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

There is reasonable evidence to support the notion that compliance with accreditation standards has multiple plausible benefits in improving the performance in the hospital setting. Despite inconclusive evidence on causality, introducing hospital accreditation schemes stimulates performance improvement and patient safety. Efforts to incentivize and modernize accreditation are recommended to move towards institutionalization and sustaining the performance gains. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020167863.

Hospital accreditation: Driving best outcomes through continuity of midwifery care? A scoping review

PROBLEM

Continuity of midwifery care models are the gold standard of maternity care. Despite being recommended by the Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council, few women in Australia have access to such models.

BACKGROUND

Extensive research shows that if all women had access to continuity of midwifery care, maternal and neonatal outcomes would improve. Hospital accreditation, the main national safety and quality system in Australia, aims to encourage and enable the translation of healthcare quality and safety standards into practice.

AIM

This paper explored the realities and possibilities of a health care accreditation system driving health service re-organisation towards the provision of continuity of midwifery care for childbearing women.

METHODS

A scoping review sought literature at the macro (policy) level. From 3036 records identified, the final number of sources included was 100:73 research articles and eight expert opinion pieces/editorials from journals, 15 government/accreditation documents, three government/accreditation websites, and one thesis.

FINDINGS

Two narrative themes emerged: (1) Hospital accreditation: 'Here to stay' but no clear evidence and calls for change. (2) Measuring and implementing quality and safety in maternity care.

DISCUSSION

Regulatory frameworks drive hospitals' priorities, potentially creating conditions for change. The case for reform in the hospital accreditation system is persuasive and, in maternity services, clear. Mechanisms to actualise the required changes in maternity care are less apparent, but clearly possible.

CONCLUSIONS

Structural changes to Australia's health accreditation system are needed to prioritise, and mandate, continuity of midwifery care.

Novel team-based approach to quality improvement effectively engages staff and reduces adverse events in healthcare settings

Background

Despite significant attention to safety and quality in healthcare over two decades, patient harm in hospitals remains a challenge. There is now growing emphasis on continuous quality improvement, with approaches that engage front-line staff. Our objective was to determine whether a novel approach to reviewing routine clinical practice through structured conversations—map-enabled experiential review—could improve engagement of front-line staff in quality improvement activities and drive improvements in indicators of patient harm.

Methods

Once a week over a 10-month period, front-line staff were engaged in 35 min team-based conversations about routine practices relating to five national safety standards. Structure for the conversations was provided by interactive graphical logic maps representing each standard. Staff awareness of—and attitudes to—quality improvement, as well as their perceptions of the intervention and its impact, were canvassed through surveys. The impact of the intervention on measures of patient safety was determined through analysis of selected incident data reported in the hospital’s risk management system.

Results

The map-enabled experiential review approach was well received by staff, who reported increased awareness and understanding of national standards and related hospital policies and protocols, as well as increased interest in quality issues and improvement. The data also indicate an improvement in quality and safety in the two participating units, with a 34% statistically significant decrease in the recorded incident rates of the participating units relative to the rest of the hospital for a set of independently recorded incidents relating to patient identification.

Discussion

This exploratory study provided promising initial results on the feasibility and effectiveness of map-enabled experiential review as a quality improvement approach in an acute clinical setting.

Mediators of change in healthcare organisations subject to external assessment: a systematic review with narrative synthesis

OBJECTIVES

External inspections are widely used to improve the quality of care. The effects of inspections remain unclear and little is known about how they may work. We conducted a narrative synthesis of research literature to identify mediators of change in healthcare organisations subject to external inspections.

METHODS

We performed a literature search (1980-January 2020) to identify empirical studies addressing change in healthcare organisations subject to external inspection. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we performed a narrative synthesis to identify mediators of change.

RESULTS

We included 95 studies. Accreditation was the most frequent type of inspection (n=68), followed by statutory inspections (n=19), and external peer review (n=9). Our findings suggest that the regulatory context in which the inspections take place affect how they are acted on by those being inspected. The way inspections are conducted seem to be critical for how the inspection findings are perceived and followed up. Inspections can engage and involve staff, facilitate leader engagement, improve communication and enable the creation of new networks for reflection on clinical practice. Inspections can contribute to creating an awareness of the inspected organisation's current practice and performance gaps, and a commitment to change. Moreover, they can contribute to facilitating the planning and implementation of change, as well as self-evaluation and the use of data to evaluate performance.

CONCLUSIONS

External inspections can affect different mediators of organisational change. The way and to what extent they do depend on a range of factors related to the outer setting, the way inspections are conducted and how they are perceived and acted on by the inspected organisation. To improve the quality of care, the organisational change processes need to involve and impact the way care is delivered to the patients.

Primary healthcare accreditation standards: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Accreditation is an essential component in primary healthcare (PHC) systems. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the most suitable PHC accreditation models and standards, worldwide, and to prepare a comprehensive and unbiased summary from research on these models.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

A systematic search was undertaken using Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct, Springer, PubMed and ProQuest databases in August 2016 and updated in January 2018. English language studies addressing PHC accreditation standards and models, published between 1995 and January 2018, were included, resulting in 9051 citations. After excluding duplicates and irrelevant studies, 19 were included in the final review. Two independent reviewers critically appraised the studies. Consequently, accreditation standards in the models were extracted and compared.

FINDINGS

Results indicate that USA, Australia, Canada, UK and New Zealand (non-eastern Mediterranean regions (EMR)) and Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Egypt (EMR) had well-developed and high-quality PHC accreditation models. The Jordanian, Egyptian and Saudi models had the highest diversity in their PHC standards domains. Community-oriented care, safe care, high-quality care, care continuity and human resource management had the highest priority among PHC accreditation programs.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

The authors provide PHC accreditation benchmarks and determine high priority practical domains in accreditation standards. The findings should help health system managers and policymakers design new PHC accreditation programs and promote PHC service quality.

A perspective on Chiropractic Councils on Education accreditation standards and processes from the inside: a narrative description of expert opinion: Part 1: Themes

Background

The aim of this study was to report on key informant opinions of Councils on Chiropractic Education (CCE) regarding recent research findings reporting on improving accreditation standards and processes for chiropractic programs (CPs).

Methods

This qualitative study employed in-depth semi-structured interviews with key experienced personnel from the five CCEs in June and July of 2018. The interviews consisted of open-ended questions on a range of issues surrounding accreditation, graduate competency standards and processes. All interviews were audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were analysed to develop codes and themes using thematic analysis techniques assisted by NVivo coding software. The study followed the COREQ guidelines for qualitative studies.

Results

Six themes were isolated from the interview transcripts; they were: professional differences; keep it in the family; to focus on outcomes or be prescriptive?; more resources please; inter-profession integration; and CPs making ends meet. Most respondents saw a need for CCEs standards and processes to improve interdisciplinarity while at the same time preserving the 'uniqueness' of chiropractic. Additionally, informants viewed CCEs as carrying out their functions with limited resources while simultaneously dealing with vocal disparate interest groups. Diverse views were observed on how CCEs should go about their business of assessing chiropractic programs for accreditation and re-accreditation.

Conclusions

An overarching confounder for positive changes in CCE accreditation standards and processes is the inability to clearly define basic and fundamental terms such as 'chiropractic' and its resultant scope of practice. This is said to be because of vocal, diverse and disparate interest groups within the chiropractic profession. Silence or nebulous definitions negotiated in order to allow a diversity of chiropractic practice to co-exist, appears to have complicated and hindered the activities of CCEs. Recommendations are made including an adoption of an evidence-based approach to accreditation standards and processes and the use of expertise from other health professions. Further, the focus of attention should be moved away from professional interests and toward that of protection of the public and the patient.

Recognising and responding to deteriorating patients: what difference do national standards make?

Background

The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care released a set of national standards which became a mandatory part of accreditation in 2013. Standard 9 focuses on the identification and treatment of deteriorating patients. The objective of the study was to identify changes in the characteristics and perceptions of rapid response systems (RRS) since the implementation of Standard 9.

Methods

Cross-sectional study of Australian hospitals. Baseline data was obtained from a pre-implementation survey in 2010 (220 hospitals). A follow-up survey was distributed in 2015 to staff involved in implementing Standard 9 in public and private hospitals (276 responses) across Australia.

Results

Since 2010, the proportion of hospitals with formal RRS had increased from 66 to 85. Only 7% of sites had dedicated funding to operate the RRS. 83% of respondents reported that Standard 9 had improved the recognition of, and response to, deteriorating patients in their health service, with 51% believing it had improved awareness at the executive level and 50% believing it had changed hospital culture.

Conclusions

Implementing a national safety and quality standard for deteriorating patients can change processes to deliver safer care, while raising the profile of safety issues. Despite limited dedicated funding and staffing, respondents reported that Standard 9 had a positive impact on the care for deteriorating patients in their hospitals.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4339-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Healthcare accreditation as trigger of organisational change: The view of professionals

BACKGROUND

Healthcare accreditation seeks to promote the organisational change in healthcare organisations from an approach that values the level of progress achieved through a validated reference framework. The aim of this paper is to analyse the role played by accreditation through the experience perceived by health professionals during the process of self-assessment and external evaluation, taking into account three dimensions of analysis: focus on the patient, internal organisation and leadership, and impact on the clinical aspects of healthcare.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Design: Semi-structured interviews with key informants from clinical management units (CMU) within the Andalusian Health System (Spain).

PARTICIPANTS

The key informants in each CMU were the clinical leader, the head of nursing and two health professionals (doctors and nurses). A qualitative research protocol was employed to conduct the semi-structured interviews (n=52 interviews) with physicians and nurses, in order to analyse their experience with the accreditation process.

RESULTS

The analysis identified four main outcomes related to the accreditation process perceived by professionals: (1) A benchmarking conceptualisation of the process; (2) Improvements in patient-centred care, quality of clinical records, and organisational culture of the units; (3) Improvement of patient safety culture; (4) As negative outcomes, a slight perception of bureaucratisation and standardisation of the clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The described initiative of accreditation process in Andalusia (Spain) is widely perceived as positive by health professionals since it fosters the organisational change, although it also has a slightly negative bureaucratisation effect on clinical practice.

Understanding accreditation standards in general practice - a qualitative study

Background

Accreditation is a widely adopted tool for quality control and quality improvement in health care, which has increasingly been employed for general practice. However, there is lack of knowledge of how accreditation is received and experienced by health professionals in general practice. This study explores how general practitioners (GPs) and their staff experienced the comprehensibility of accreditation standards and how they worked to increase their understanding of the standards. The study was conducted in Denmark where accreditation was mandatory in general practice from 2016 to 2018.

Methods

The study consists of qualitative interviews with general practitioners and staff from 11 general practices that were strategically sampled among practices set to receive their survey visit in 2017. Participants were interviewed twice; once during the preparation phase and once after the survey visit. GPs and staff were interviewed separately. The interviews were analysed inductively using thematic analysis.

Results

Understanding the requirements of the accreditation standards was a major challenge for the professionals when preparing for the accreditation survey visit. The participants attempted to increase their understanding of the standards in several ways including the use of regional support options and seeking out experts and colleagues. However, participants had mixed experiences with the various support options and many found the sense making work frustrating and time consuming.

Conclusion

The results point to the importance of considering the level of specificity in accreditation standards and how to ensure an organisational set-up that can offer appropriate support to primary care clinics in terms of understanding what is required to meet the standards.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-019-0910-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparing the old to the new: A comparison of similarities and differences of the accreditation standards of the chiropractic council on education-international from 2010 to 2016

Background

Chiropractic programs are accredited and monitored by regional Councils on Chiropractic Education (CCE). The CCE-International has historically been a federation of regional CCEs charged with harmonising world standards to produce quality chiropractic educational programs. The standards for accreditation periodically undergo revision. We conducted a comparison of the CCE-International 2016 Accreditation Standards with the previous version, looking for similarities and differences, expecting to see some improvements.

Method

The CCE-International current (2016) and previous versions (2010) were located and downloaded. Word counts were conducted for words thought to reflect content and differences between standards. These were tabulated to identify similarities and differences. Interpretation was made independently followed by discussion between two researchers.

Results

The 2016 standards were nearly 3 times larger than the previous standards. The 2016 standards were created by mapping and selection of common themes from member CCEs' accreditation standards and not through an evidence-based approach to the development and trialling of accreditation standards before implementation. In 2010 chiropractors were expected to provide attention to the relationship between the structural and neurological aspects of the body in health and disease. In 2016 they should manage mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system. Many similarities between the old and the new standards were found. Additions in 2016 included a hybrid model of accreditation founded on outcomes-based assessment of education and quality improvement. Both include comprehensive competencies for a broader role in public health. Omissions included minimal faculty qualifications and the requirement that students should be able to critically appraise scientific and clinical knowledge. Another omission was the requirement for chiropractic programs to be part of a not-for-profit educational entity. There was no mention of evidence-based practice in either standards but the word 'evidence-informed' appeared once in the 2016 standards.

Conclusions

Some positive changes have taken place, such as having bravely moved towards the musculoskeletal model, but on the negative side, the requirement to produce graduates skilled at dealing with scientific texts has been removed. A more robust development approach including better transparency is needed before implementation of CCE standards and evidence-based concepts should be integrated in the programs. The CCE-International should consider the creation of a recognition of excellence in educational programs and not merely propose minimal standards.