[Comparative analysis of the accreditation of medical facilities in Canada, Chile, the Autonomous Community of Andalusia, Denmark, and MexicoAnálise comparativa da acreditação de estabelecimentos de saúde no Canadá, Chile, Comunidade Autônoma da Andaluzia, Dinamarca e México]

Objective

To compare and contrast the characteristics of the accreditation process for health care facilities in Canada, Chile, the Autonomous Community of Andalusia (Spain), Denmark, and Mexico, in order to identify shared characteristics, differences, and lessons learned that may be useful for other countries and regions.

Methods

An observational, analytical, retrospective study using open-access secondary sources on the accreditation and certification of health care facilities in 2019-2021 in these countries and regions. The general characteristics of the accreditation processes are described and comments are made on key aspects of the design of these programs. Additionally, analytical categories were created for degree of implementation and level of complexity, and the positive and negative results reported are summarized.

Results

The operational components of the accreditation processes are country-specific, although they share similarities. The Canadian program is the only one that involves some form of responsive evaluation. There is a wide range in the percentage of establishments accredited from country to country (from 1% in Mexico to 34.7% in Denmark). Notable lessons learned include the complexity of application in a mixed public-private system (Chile), the risk of excessive bureaucratization (Denmark), and the need for clear incentives (Mexico).

Conclusions

The accreditation programs operate in a unique way in each country and region, achieve varying degrees of implementation, and have an assortment of problems, from which lessons can be learned. Elements that hinder their implementation should be considered and adjustments made for the health systems of each country and region.

The Attitude of Hospital Directors Towards Normalising Accreditation Standards: A Qualitative Descriptive Study for Saudi Arabia

Background

Accreditation is an important performance management tool. The engagement of stakeholders in pursuing accreditation plays a critical role in integrating standards into routine practice.

Objective

This study explores the attitude of hospital directors towards accreditation and investigates the mechanisms of normalising standards in Saudi Arabian hospitals.

Methods

Fifteen hospital directors across Saudi Arabia participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews. The interviews were conducted virtually, audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and then analysed thematically using the NVivo-12 software package. The normalisation process theory (i.e. coherence, participation, actions and monitoring) was adopted to frame the study and describe the findings on normalising accreditation standards heuristically.

Results

Overall, the hospital directors perceived accreditation favourably, particularly by those with more experience or previous exposure to accreditation. This attitude was a factor in normalising standards into daily operations. The clarity of standards, availability of full-time quality professionals and alignment of accreditation standards with hospital strategies assisted hospital directors in making sense of accreditation (coherence) and moving towards engaging hospital teams in the process (cognitive participation). This motivation-driven engagement catalysed the initiation of purposeful operational activities to integrate standards in operations (collective actions). The integration included distributing standard sets to relevant owners, conducting gap analysis, constructing a corrective plan and prioritising tasks within timeframes. Despite the financial and structural constraints experienced, the integration resulted in enhanced organisational safety culture, team spirit, communication, public trust, reporting of safety concerns and standardising of procedures. Following the integration, the objective appraisal of accreditation benefits (reflexive monitoring) was critical in addressing what went wrong, what worked well, and subsequently in sustaining performance gains.

Conclusion

The effectiveness of integrating accreditation standards heavily relies on making sense of accreditation and understanding the mechanisms through which standards are routinised into operations. This study, using normalisation process theory constructs, indicates that standards integration phases are sequential, interlinked and influenced by culture, teamwork and leadership engagement. The findings helped in clarifying the accreditation operating process which may provide advantages to policymakers and stakeholders in making informed decisions on the implementation of accreditation.

Composite measures of quality of health care: Evidence mapping of methodology and reporting

Background

Quality indicators are used to quantify the quality of care. A large number of quality indicators makes assessment of overall quality difficult, time consuming and impractical. There is consequently an increasing interest for composite measures based on a combination of multiple indicators.

Objective

To examine the use of different approaches to construct composite measures of quality of care and to assess the use of methodological considerations and justifications.

Methods

We conducted a literature search on PubMed and EMBASE databases (latest update 1 December 2020). For each publication, we extracted information on the weighting and aggregation methodology that had been used to construct composite indicator(s).

Results

A total of 2711 publications were identified of which 145 were included after a screening process. Opportunity scoring with equal weights was the most used approach (86/145, 59%) followed by all-or-none scoring (48/145, 33%). Other approaches regarding aggregation or weighting of individual indicators were used in 32 publications (22%). The rationale for selecting a specific type of composite measure was reported in 36 publications (25%), whereas 22 papers (15%) addressed limitations regarding the composite measure.

Conclusion

Opportunity scoring and all-or-none scoring are the most frequently used approaches when constructing composite measures of quality of care. The attention towards the rationale and limitations of the composite measures appears low.

Discussion

Considering the widespread use and the potential implications for decision-making of composite measures, a high level of transparency regarding the construction process of the composite and the functionality of the measures is crucial.

Patient-related healthcare disparities in the quality of acute hip fracture care: a 10-year nationwide population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To characterise and quantify possible patient-related disparities in hip fracture care including temporal changes.

DESIGN

Population-based cohort study.

SETTING

All Danish hospitals treating patients with hip fracture.

PARTICIPANTS

60 275 hip fracture patients from 2007 to 2016.

INTERVENTIONS

Quality of care was defined as fulfilment of eligible care process measures for the individual patient recommended by an expert panel. Using yearly logistic regression models, we predicted the individual patient's probability for receiving high-quality care, resulting in a distribution of adjusted probabilities based on age, sex, comorbidity, fracture type, education, family mean income, migration status, cohabitation status, employment status, nursing home residence and type of municipality. Based on the distribution, we identified best-off patients (ie, the 10% of patients with the highest probability) and worst-off patients (ie, the 10% of patients with the lowest probability). We evaluated disparities in quality of care by measuring the distance in fulfilment of outcomes between the best-off and worst-off patients.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was fulfilment of all-or-none, defined as receiving all relevant process measures. Secondary outcomes were fulfilment of the individual process measures including preoperative optimisation, early surgery, early mobilisation, assessment of pain, basic mobility, nutritional risk and need for antiosteoporotic medication, fall prevention and a postdischarge rehabilitation programme.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients receiving high-quality care varied over time for both best-off and worst-off patients. The absolute difference in percentage points between the best-off and worst-off patients for receiving all-or-none of the eligible process measures was 12 (95% CI 6 to 18) in 2007 and 23 (95% CI 19 to 28) in 2016. Disparities were consistent for a range of care processes, including assessment of pain, mobilisation within 24 hours, assessment of need for antiosteoporotic medication and nutritional risk assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Disparity of care between best-off and worst-off patients remained substantial over time.

Navigating between Scylla and Charybdis: challenges and strategies for implementing guideline-directed medical treatment in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) has the potential to reduce the risks of mortality and hospitalisation in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, real-world data indicate that many patients with HFrEF do not receive optimised GDMT, which involves several different medications, many of which require up-titration to target doses. There are many challenges to implementing GDMT, the most important being patient-related factors (comorbidities, advanced age, frailty, cognitive impairment, poor adherence, low socioeconomic status), treatment-related factors (intolerance, side-effects) and healthcare-related factors that influence availability and accessibility of HF care. Accordingly, international disparities in resources for HF management and limited public reimbursement of GDMT, coupled with clinical inertia for treatment intensification combine to hinder efforts to provide GDMT. In this review paper, authors aim to provide solutions based on available evidence, practical experience, and expert consensus on how to utilise evolving strategies, novel medications, and patient profiling to allow the more comprehensive uptake of GDMT. Authors discuss professional education, motivation, and training, as well as patient empowerment for self-care as important tools to overcome clinical inertia and boost GDMT implementation. We provide evidence on how multidisciplinary care and institutional accreditation can be successfully used to increase prescription rates and adherence to GDMT. We consider the role of modern technologies in advancing professional and patient education and facilitating patient-provider communication. Finally, authors emphasise the role of novel drugs (especially sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors), and a tailored approach to drug management as evolving strategies for the more successful implementation of GDMT. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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.

The association between first-time accreditation and the delivery of recommended care: a before and after study in the Faroe Islands

Background

Significant resources are spent on hospital accreditation worldwide. However, documentation of the effects of accreditation on processes, quality of care and outcomes in healthcare remain scarce. This study aimed to examine changes in the delivery of patient care in accordance with clinical guidelines (recommended care) after first-time accreditation in a care setting not previously exposed to systematic quality improvement initiatives.

Methods

We conducted a before and after study based on medical record reviews in connection with introducing first-time accreditation. We included patients with stroke/transient ischemic attack, bleeding gastric ulcer, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), childbirth, heart failure and hip fracture treated at public, non-psychiatric Faroese hospitals during 2012–2013 (before accreditation) or 2017–2018 (after accreditation). The intervention was the implementation of a modified second version of The Danish Healthcare Quality Program (DDKM) from 2014 to 2016 including an on-site accreditation survey in the Faroese hospitals. Recommended care was assessed using 63 disease specific patient level process performance measures in seven clinical conditions. We calculated the fulfillment and changes in the opportunity-based composite score and the all-or-none score.

Results

We included 867 patient pathways (536 before and 331 after). After accreditation, the total opportunity-based composite score was marginally higher though the change did not reach statistical significance (adjusted percentage point difference (%): 4.4%; 95% CI: − 0.7 to 9.6). At disease level, patients with stroke/transient ischemic attack, bleeding gastric ulcer, COPD and childbirth received a higher proportion of recommended care after accreditation. No difference was found for heart failure and diabetes. Hip fracture received less recommended care after accreditation. The total all-or-none score, which is the probability of a patient receiving all recommended care, was significantly higher after accreditation (adjusted relative risk (RR): 2.32; 95% CI: 2.03 to 2.67). The improvement was particularly strong for patients with COPD (RR: 16.22; 95% CI: 14.54 to 18.10).

Conclusion

Hospitals were in general more likely to provide recommended care after first-time accreditation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06952-w.

Stroke 20 20: Implementation goals for intravenous thrombolysis

Introduction

Knowledge of the implementation gap would facilitate the use of intravenous thrombolysis in stroke, which is still low in many countries. The study was conducted to identify national implementation targets for the utilisation and logistics of intravenous thrombolysis.

Material and Method

Multicomponent interventions by stakeholders in health care to optimise prehospital and hospital management with the goal of fast and accessible intravenous thrombolysis for every candidate. Implementation results were documented from prospectively collected cases in all 45 stroke centres nationally. The thrombolytic rate was calculated from the total number of all ischemic strokes in the population of the Czech Republic since 2004.

Results

Thrombolytic rates of 1.3 (95%CI 1.1 to 1.4), 5.4 (95%CI 5.1 to 5.7), 13.6 (95%CI 13.1 to 14.0), 23.3 (95%CI 22.8 to 23.9), and 23.5% (95%CI 23.0 to 24.1%) were achieved in 2005, 2009, 2014, 2017, and 2018, respectively. National median door-to-needle times were 60-70 minutes before 2012 and then decreased progressively every year to 25 minutes (IQR 17 to 36) in 2018. In 2018, 33% of both university and non-university hospitals achieved median door-to-needle time ≤20 minutes. In 2018, door-to-needle times ≤20, ≤45, and ≤60 minutes were achieved in 39, 85, and 93% of patients.

Discussion

Thrombolysis can be provided to ≥ 20% of all ischemic strokes nationwide and it is realistic to achieve median door-to-needle time 20 minutes.

Conclusion

Stroke 20-20 could serve as national implementation target for intravenous thrombolysis and country specific implementation policies should be applied to achieve such target.

What Gets Measured Gets Improved-Setting Standards and Accreditation for Quality Improvement for Diabetes Services in Australia

The purpose of this article is to illustrate that setting standards of care is the cornerstone for excellence in diabetes management. This is underpinned by 3 activities: a standards and accreditation process, an audit and benchmarking program and a linked quality improvement plan. While there are many examples of local auditing and quality improvement programs, there are very few that are at a national level. The National Association of Diabetes Centres (NADC) was formed by the Australian Diabetes Society and the Australian Diabetes Educators Association to set standards of diabetes care in Australia. A rigorous accreditation process was put in place to recognize primary, secondary, and tertiary level diabetes centers that meet these standards. The NADC accreditation process is underpinned by a quality improvement plan, which must be submitted for accreditation to be granted and is informed by the Australian National Diabetes Audit (ANDA). ANDA is conducted annually to gather information about treatments, complications, self-care practices and quality of life outcomes and provides a national as well as an individual report to the participating center that is used to benchmark against other like centers. The ANDA reports are important to inform national policy and advocacy for diabetes care and to also provide information for quality improvement purposes for the individual participating center. We believe that the NADC Standards and Accreditation can be an exemplar for other countries to adapt and adopt to standardize diabetes care at the highest level.

Is a hospital quality policy based on a triad of accreditation, public reporting and inspection evidence-based? A narrative review

BACKGROUND

Since 2009, hospital quality policy in Flanders, Belgium, is built around a quality-of-care triad, which encompasses accreditation, public reporting (PR) and inspection. Policy makers are currently reflecting on the added value of this triad.

METHODS

We performed a narrative review of the literature published between 2009 and 2020 to examine the evidence base of the impact accreditation, PR and inspection, both individually and combined, has on patient processes and outcomes. The following patient outcomes were examined: mortality, length of stay, readmissions, patient satisfaction, adverse outcomes, failure to rescue, adherence to process measures and risk aversion. The impact of accreditation, PR and inspection on these outcomes was evaluated as either positive, neutral (i.e. no impact observed or mixed results reported) or negative.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the current evidence base on the impact of accreditation, PR and inspection on patient processes and outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 69 studies, of which 40 were on accreditation, 24 on PR, three on inspection and two on accreditation and PR concomitantly. Identified studies reported primarily low-level evidence (level IV, n = 53) and were heterogeneous in terms of implemented programmes and patient populations (often narrow in PR research). Overall, a neutral categorization was determined in 30 articles for accreditation, 23 for PR and four for inspection. Ten of these recounted mixed results. For accreditation, a high number (n = 12) of positive research on adherence to process measures was discovered.

CONCLUSION

The individual impact of accreditation, PR and inspection, the core of Flemish hospital quality, was found to be limited on patient outcomes. Future studies should investigate the combined effect of multiple quality improvement strategies.

Consecutive cycles of accreditation and quality of in-hospital care: a Danish population-based study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about whether repeated cycles of hospital accreditation are a robust method to improve quality of care continuously.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to examine the association between compliance with consecutive cycles of accreditation and quality of in-hospital care.

METHODS

We conducted a Danish nationwide population-based study including patients aged 18 years treated for acute stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart failure or hip fracture at public, non-psychiatric hospitals. From 2012 to 2015, two cycles of national hospital accreditation were completed, resulting in 12 high and 14 low compliant hospitals (Low = partially accredited in both cycles). Our outcome measure was quality of in-hospital care measured by 39 process performance measures (PPMs), reflecting recommendations from the national clinical guidelines by adherence to (i) individual PPMs and (ii) the full bundle of PPMs (all-or-none). We computed adjusted odds ratios (ORs) using logistic regression based on robust standard error estimation for cluster sampling of data at hospital level.

RESULTS

In total, 78 387 patient pathways covering 508 816 processes were included, of which 47% had been delivered at high compliant hospitals and 53% at low compliant hospitals, respectively. Compliance with consecutive cycles was not associated with improved quality of in-hospital care (individual: OR = 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77-1.10; All-or-none: OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.66-1.15). However, in the second cycle alone, patients treated at partially accredited hospitals had a lower adherence than patients treated at fully accredited hospitals (Individual: OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.71-0.99; All-or-none: OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.59-1.03). The association was particularly strong among patients treated at partially accredited hospitals required to submit additional documentation.

CONCLUSION

Compliance with consecutive cycles of hospital accreditation in Denmark was not associated with improved quality of in-hospital care. However, compliance with the second cycle alone was associated with improved quality of in-hospital care.

Measures of hospital competition and their impact on early mortality for congestive heart failure, acute myocardial infarction and cardiac surgery

OBJECTIVE

To measure competition amongst providers and to examine whether a correlation exists with hospitals mortality for congestive heart failure (CHF), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), isolated-coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or valve surgery.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study based on publically available data from the National Outcome Evaluation Program (Edition 2016) of the Italian Agency for Regional Health Services.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients discharged during 2015 for CHF or AMI, and between 2014 and 2015 for cardiac surgery (respectively, from 662, 395 and 91 hospitals).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Risk-adjusted mortality rates at 30 days and measures of hospital competition for areas centred on hospital' location (fixed-radius 50-150 km, variable-radius to capture 10-30 hospitals and 6-10% of national volume). Competition was estimated as number of providers and Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI).

RESULTS

Indicators of competitions varied by condition and were sensitive to method used for the area definition. Hospital mortality after AMI and valve surgery increased with competition in areas identified by the variable-radius method (higher rates for a greater number of hospitals or lower HHIs). In area with fixed radius of 100-150 km, competition reduced mortality after CABG procedures (lower rates for a greater number of hospitals or smaller HHIs). Neither the number of hospitals nor HHI correlated with outcomes in CHF.

CONCLUSIONS

The measures of hospital competition changed according to definition of local market and results in mortality correlations varied among conditions. Understanding the relationship between hospital competition and outcomes is important to identify strategies to improve quality of care.

Consecutive cycles of hospital accreditation: Persistent low compliance associated with higher mortality and longer length of stay

Objective

To examine the association between compliance with consecutive cycles of accreditation and patient-related outcomes.

Design

A Danish nationwide population-based study from 2012 to 2015.

Setting

In-patients admitted with one of the 80 diagnoses at public, non-psychiatric hospitals.

Participants

In-patients admitted with one of 80 primary diagnoses which accounted for 80% of all deaths occuring within 30 dyas after admission.

Intervention

Admission to a hospital with high (n = 125 485 in-patients) or low compliance (n = 152 074 in-patients) in both cycles of accreditation by the Danish Healthcare Quality Programme.

Main outcome measures

A 30-day mortality, length of stay (LOS) and all-cause acute readmission. We computed adjusted odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios (HR) using logistic and Cox Proportional Hazard regression including adjustment for six potential patient-related confounders.

Results

The 30-day mortality risk for in-patients admitted at high compliant hospitals was 3.95% (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.84-4.06) and 4.39% (95% CI: 4.29-4.49) at low compliant hospitals. In-patients admitted at low compliant hospitals had a substantially higher risk of dying within 30-day after admission (adjusted OR: 1.26 (95% CI: 1.11-1.43) and a longer LOS (adjusted HR of discharge: 0.89 (95% CI: 0.82-0.95) than in-patients at high compliant hospitals. No difference was seen for acute readmission (adjusted HR: 0.98 (95% CI: 0.90-1.06)). Focusing on the second cycle alone, in-patients at partially accredited hospitals had a higher 30-day mortality risk and longer LOS than admissions at fully accredited hospitals (30-day: adjusted OR: 1.12 (95% CI: 1.02-1.24) and LOS: adjusted HR: 0.91 (95% CI: 0.84-0.98)).

Conclusion

Persistent low compliance with the DDKM (in Danish: Den Danske Kvalitetsmodel) accreditation was associated with higher 30-day mortality and longer LOS.

Investigation of the conditions affecting the joining of Hungarian hospitals to an accreditation programme: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

Quantitative studies have shown the various benefits for having accreditation in hospitals. However, neither of these explored the general conditions before applying for an accreditation. To close this gap, this study aimed to investigate the possible association between joining an accreditation programme with various hospital characteristics.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study was implemented using the databases of the 2013 Hungarian hospital survey and of the Hungarian State Treasury.

SETTING

Public general hospitals in Hungary.

PARTICIPANTS

The analysis involved 44 public general hospitals, 14 of which joined the preparatory project for a newly developed accreditation programme.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcomes included the percentage of compliance in quality management, patient information and identification, internal professional regulation, safe surgery, pressure sore prevention, infection control, the opinions of the heads of quality management regarding the usefulness of quality management and clinical audits, and finally, the total debt of the hospital per bed and per discharged patient.

RESULTS

According to our findings, the general hospitals joining the preparatory project of the accreditation programme performed better in four of the six investigated activities, the head of quality management had a better opinion on the usefulness of quality management, and both the debt per bed number and the debt per discharged patient were lower than those who did not join. However, no statistically significant differences between the two groups were found in any of the examined outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that hospitals applying for an accreditation programme do not differ significantly in characteristics from those which did not apply. This means that if in the future the accredited hospitals become better than other hospitals, then the improvement could be solely contributed to the accreditation.