Search

Objective: To examine general practice accreditation stakeholders' perspectives and experiences to identify program strengths and areas for improvements., Design, Setting and Participants: Individual (n=2) and group (n=9) interviews were conducted between September 2011-March 2012 with 52 stakeholders involved in accreditation in Australian general practices. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Member checking activities in April 2016 assessed the credibility and currency of the findings in light of current reforms., Results: Overall, participants endorsed the accreditation program but identified several areas of concern. Noted strengths of the program included: program ownership, peer review and collaborative learning; access to Practice Incentives Program payments; and, improvements in safety and quality. Noted limitations in these and other aspects of the program offer potential for improvement: evidence for the impact of accreditation; resource demands; clearer outcome measures; and, specific experiences of accreditation., Conclusions: The effectiveness of accreditation as a strategy to improve safety and quality was shaped by the attitudes and experience of stakeholders. Strengths and weaknesses in the accreditation program influence, and are influenced by, stakeholder engagement and disengagement. After several accreditation cycles, the sector has the opportunity to reflect on, review and improve the process. This will be important if the continued or extended engagement of practices is to be realised to assure the continuation and effectiveness of the accreditation program., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Rationale, Aims and Objective: Accrediting health care organizations against standards is a recognized safety and quality intervention. The credibility of an accreditation programme relies on surveying reliability. We investigated accreditation survey coordinators' perceptions of reliability issues and their continued relevancy, during a period of national accreditation reform., Method: In 2013 and 2014, questionnaire surveys were developed using survey coordinators' feedback of their experiences and concerns regarding the accreditation process. Each year, a purpose-designed questionnaire survey was administered during the accrediting agency survey coordinator training days., Results: Participants reported that survey reliability was informed by five categories of issues: the management of the accreditation process, including standards and health care organizational issues; surveyor workforce management; survey coordinator role; survey team; and individual surveyors. A new accreditation system and programme did not alter the factors reported to shape survey reliability. However, across the reform period, there was a noted change within each category of the specific issues that were of concern. Furthermore, consensus between coordinators that existed in 2013 appears to have diminished in 2014. Across all categories, in 2014 there was greater diversity of opinion than in 2013., Conclusions: The known challenges to the reliability of an accreditation programme retained their potency and relevancy during a period of reform. The diversity of opinion identified across the coordinator workforce could potentially place the credibility and reliability of the new scheme at risk. The study highlights that reliability of an accreditation scheme is an ongoing achievement, not a one-off attainment., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: To examine how consumer engagement (CE) can be promoted through Australian accreditation programmes., Design: A nation-wide qualitative study completed in 2012., Setting: All eight Australian States and Territories., Participants: Two-hundred and fifty-eight healthcare stakeholders from the acute, primary and aged care sectors., Intervention: Forty-seven individual and group interviews were undertaken. Questions elicited views on the dimensions and utility of CE promotion by accreditation programmes., Main Outcome Measure: Healthcare stakeholders' views on the dimensions and utility of CE promotion by accreditation programmes., Results: Four mechanisms of CE promotion were identified. Two involved requirements for health service organizations to meet CE-related standards related to consumer experience and satisfaction surveys, and consumer participation in organizational governance processes. Two mechanisms for promoting CE through accreditation processes were also identified, concerning consumer participation in the development and revision of standards, and the implementation of accreditation surveys. Accreditation programmes were viewed as important drivers of CE, yet concerns were raised regarding the organizational investments needed to meet programmes' requirements., Conclusions: Accreditation programmes use diverse mechanisms as levers for change to promote CE in healthcare. These mechanisms and their inter-relationships require careful consideration by accreditation agencies and health policymakers to maximize their potential benefits, while maintaining stakeholder engagement in programmes., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The study aim was to investigate the understandings and concerns of stakeholders regarding the evolution of health service accreditation programs in Australia. Stakeholder representatives from programs in the primary, acute and aged care sectors participated in semi-structured interviews. Across 2011-12 there were 47 group and individual interviews involving 258 participants. Interviews lasted, on average, 1 h, and were digitally recorded and transcribed. Transcriptions were analysed using textual referencing software. Four significant issues were considered to have directed the evolution of accreditation programs: altering underlying program philosophies; shifting of program content focus and details; different surveying expectations and experiences and the influence of external contextual factors upon accreditation programs. Three accreditation program models were noted by participants: regulatory compliance; continuous quality improvement and a hybrid model, incorporating elements of these two. Respondents noted the compatibility or incommensurability of the first two models. Participation in a program was reportedly experienced as ranging on a survey continuum from "malicious compliance" to "performance audits" to "quality improvement journeys". Wider contextual factors, in particular, political and community expectations, and associated media reporting, were considered significant influences on the operation and evolution of programs. A hybrid accreditation model was noted to have evolved. The hybrid model promotes minimum standards and continuous quality improvement, through examining the structure and processes of organisations and the outcomes of care. The hybrid model appears to be directing organisational and professional attention to enhance their safety cultures. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Agencies promoting national health-care accreditation reform to improve the quality of care and safety of patients are largely working without specific blueprints that can increase the likelihood of success., Objective: This study investigated the development and implementation of the Australian Health Service Safety and Quality Accreditation Scheme and National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards (the Scheme), their expected benefits, and challenges and facilitators to implementation., Methods: A multimethod study was conducted using document analysis, observation and interviews. Data sources were eight government reports, 25 h of observation and 34 interviews with 197 diverse stakeholders., Results: Development of the Scheme was achieved through extensive consultation conducted over a prolonged period, that is, from 2000 onwards. Participants, prior to implementation, believed the Scheme would produce benefits at multiple levels of the health system. The Scheme offered a national framework to promote patient-centred care, allowing organizations to engage and coordinate professionals' quality improvement activities. Significant challenges are apparent, including developing and maintaining stakeholder understanding of the Scheme's requirements. Risks must also be addressed. The standardized application of, and reliable assessment against, the standards must be achieved to maintain credibility with the Scheme. Government employment of effective stakeholder engagement strategies, such as structured consultation processes, was viewed as necessary for successful, sustainable implementation., Conclusion: The Australian experience demonstrates that national accreditation reform can engender widespread stakeholder support, but implementation challenges must be overcome. In particular, the fundamental role of continued stakeholder engagement increases the likelihood that such reforms are taken up and spread across health systems., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: To assess the costs of hospital accreditation in Australia., Design: Mixed methods design incorporating: stakeholder analysis; survey design and implementation; activity-based costs analysis; and expert panel review., Setting: Acute care hospitals accredited by the Australian Council for Health Care Standards., Participants: Six acute public hospitals across four States., Results: Accreditation costs varied from 0.03% to 0.60% of total hospital operating costs per year, averaged across the 4-year accreditation cycle. Relatively higher costs were associated with the surveys years and with smaller facilities. At a national level these costs translate to $A36.83 million, equivalent to 0.1% of acute public hospital recurrent expenditure in the 2012 fiscal year., Conclusions: This is the first time accreditation costs have been independently evaluated across a wide range of hospitals and highlights the additional cost burden for smaller facilities. A better understanding of the costs allows policymakers to assess alternative accreditation and other quality improvement strategies, and understand their impact across a range of facilities. This methodology can be adapted to assess international accreditation programmes., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

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.

Purpose: Health systems are changing at variable rates. Periods of significant change can create new challenges or amplify existing barriers to accreditation program credibility and reliability. The purpose of this paper is to examine, during the transition to a new Australian accreditation scheme and standards, challenges to health service accreditation survey reliability, the salience of the issues and strategies to manage threats to survey reliability., Design/methodology/approach: Across 2013-2014, a two-phase, multi-method study was conducted, involving five research activities (two questionnaire surveys and three group discussions). This paper reports data from the transcribed group discussions involving 100 participants, which was subject to content and thematic analysis. Participants were accreditation survey coordinators employed by the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards., Findings: Six significant issues influencing survey reliability were reported: accreditation program governance and philosophy; accrediting agency management of the accreditation process, including the program's framework; survey coordinators; survey team dynamics; individual surveyors; and healthcare organizations' approach to accreditation. A change in governance arrangements promoted reliability with an independent authority and a new set of standards, endorsed by Federal and State governments. However, potential reliability threats were introduced by having multiple accrediting agencies approved to survey against the new national standards. Challenges that existed prior to the reformed system remain., Originality/value: Capturing lessons and challenges from healthcare reforms is necessary if improvements are to be realized. The study provides practical and theoretical strategies to promote reliability in accreditation programs.

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.

Objectives: The study aims are twofold. First, to investigate the suitability of hand hygiene as an indicator of accreditation outcomes and, second, to test the hypothesis that hospitals with better accreditation outcomes achieve higher hand hygiene compliance rates., Design: A retrospective, longitudinal, multisite comparative survey., Setting: Acute public hospitals in New South Wales, Australia., Participants: 96 acute hospitals with accreditation survey results from two surveys during 2009-2012 and submitted data for more than four hand hygiene audits between 2010 and 2013., Outcomes: Our primary outcome comprised observational hand hygiene compliance data from eight audits during 2010-2013. The explanatory variables in our multilevel regression model included: accreditation outcomes and scores for the infection control standard; timing of the surveys; and hospital size and activity., Results: Average hand hygiene compliance rates increased from 67.7% to 80.3% during the study period (2010-2013), with 46.7% of hospitals achieving target compliance rates of 70% in audit 1, versus 92.3% in audit 8. Average hand hygiene rates at small hospitals were 7.8 percentage points (pp) higher than those at the largest hospitals (p<0.05). The association between hand hygiene rates, accreditation outcomes and infection control scores is less clear., Conclusions: Our results indicate that accreditation outcomes and hand hygiene audit data are measuring different parts of the quality and safety spectrum. Understanding what is being measured when selecting indicators to assess the impact of accreditation is critical as focusing on accreditation results would discount successful hand hygiene implementation by smaller hospitals. Conversely, relying on hand hygiene results would discount the infection control related research and leadership investment by larger hospitals. Our hypothesis appears to be confounded by an accreditation programme that makes it more difficult for smaller hospitals to achieve high infection control scores., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)