Search

Background: Hospital accreditation programs are internationally widespread and consume increasingly scarce health resources. However, we lack tools to consistently identify suitable indicators to assess and monitor accreditation outcomes. We describe the development and validation of such a tool. Results: Using Australian accreditation standards as our reference point we: reviewed the research evidence for potential indicators; looked for links with existing external indicators; and assessed relevant state and federal policies. We allocated provisional scores, on a five point Likert scale, to the five accountability criteria in the tool: research; accuracy; proximity; no adverse effects; and specificity. An expert panel validated the use of the purpose designed indicator assessment tool. The panel identified hand hygiene compliance rates as a suitable process indicator, and hospital acquired Staphylococcus aureus infection (SAB) rates as an outcome indicator, with the hypothesis that improved hand hygiene compliance rates and lower SAB rates would correlate with accreditation performance. Conclusions: This new tool can be used to identify, analyse, and compare accreditation indicators. Using infection control indicators such as hand hygiene compliance and SAB rates to measure accreditation effectiveness has merit, and their efficacy can be determined by comparing accreditation scores with indicator outcomes. To verify the tool as a robust instrument, testing is needed in other health service domains, both in Australia and internationally. This tool provides health policy makers with an important means for assessing the accreditation programs which form a critical part of the national patient safety and quality framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The study objective was to identify and describe the process, resources and expertise required for the revision of accreditation standards, and report outcomes arising from such activities. Methods: Secondary document analysis of materials from an accreditation standards development agency. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners’ (RACGP) documents, minutes and reports related to the revision of the accreditation standards were examined. Results: The RACGP revision of the accreditation standards was conducted over a 12 month period and comprised six phases with multiple tasks, including: review methodology planning; review of the evidence base and each standard; new material development; constructing field trial methodology; drafting, trialling and refining new standards; and production of new standards. Over 100 individuals participated, with an additional 30 providing periodic input and feedback. Participants were drawn from healthcare professional associations, primary healthcare services, accreditation agencies, government agencies and public health organisations. Their expertise spanned: project management; standards development and writing; primary healthcare practice; quality and safety improvement methodologies; accreditation implementation and surveying; and research. The review and development process was shaped by five issues: project expectations; resource and time requirements; a collaborative approach; stakeholder engagement; and the product produced. The RACGP evaluation was that participants were positive about their experience, the standards produced and considered them relevant for the sector. Conclusions: The revision of accreditation standards requires considerable resources and expertise, drawn from a broad range of stakeholders. Collaborative, inclusive processes that engage key stakeholders helps promote greater industry acceptance of the standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]