Search

Abstract Background Healthcare accreditation standards are advocated as an important means of improving clinical practice and organisational performance. Standard development agencies have documented methodologies to promote open, transparent, inclusive development processes where standards are developed by members. They assert that their methodologies are effective and efficient at producing standards appropriate for the health industry. However, the evidence to support these claims requires scrutiny. The study’s purpose was to examine the empirical research that grounds the development methods and application of healthcare accreditation standards. Methods A multi-method strategy was employed over the period March 2010 to August 2011. Five academic health research databases (Medline, Psych INFO, Embase, Social work abstracts, and CINAHL) were interrogated, the websites of 36 agencies associated with the study topic were investigated, and a snowball search was undertaken. Search criteria included accreditation research studies, in English, addressing standards and their impact. Searching in stage 1 initially selected 9386 abstracts. In stage 2, this selection was refined against the inclusion criteria; empirical studies (n = 2111) were identified and refined to a selection of 140 papers with the exclusion of clinical or biomedical and commentary pieces. These were independently reviewed by two researchers and reduced to 13 articles that met the study criteria. Results The 13 articles were analysed according to four categories: overall findings; standards development; implementation issues; and impact of standards. Studies have only occurred in the acute care setting, predominately in 2003 (n = 5) and 2009 (n = 4), and in the United States (n = 8). A multidisciplinary focus (n = 9) and mixed method approach (n = 11) are common characteristics. Three interventional studies were identified, with the remaining 10 studies having research designs to investigate clinical or organisational impacts. No study directly examined standards development or other issues associated with their progression. Only one study noted implementation issues, identifying several enablers and barriers. Standards were reported to improve organisational efficiency and staff circumstances. However, the impact on clinical quality was mixed, with both improvements and a lack of measurable effects recorded. Conclusion Standards are ubiquitous within healthcare and are generally considered to be an important means by which to improve clinical practice and organisational performance. However, there is a lack of robust empirical evidence examining the development, writing, implementation and impacts of healthcare accreditation standards.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of utilizing the patient journey survey (PJS) method in healthcare accreditation processes. Design Randomized trial of the PJS method in parallel with the current accreditation survey (CAS) method of the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS). Setting Acute healthcare organizations in Australia. Participants Seventeen organizations, 28 organizational staff, nine surveyors and 38 patients. Main Outcome Measures The results of each surveying method were compared. Participants provided feedback, via 18 interviews and 40 questionnaire surveys, about the benefits and disadvantages of a PJS compared to a CAS. Results The PJS method is not as comprehensive as the CAS method for accreditation assessment. In matched assessments the majority of items were rated lower by the PJS method than by the CAS. PJSs were shown to be appropriate for assessing mandatory clinical criteria, but were less effective for assessing corporate and support criteria. The two methods diverged in their final assessments of which organizations met the accreditation threshold. Participants endorsed the use of PJSs within accreditation processes. Conclusions The PJS methodology complements but is not a substitute for existing accreditation methods. There is significant stakeholder support for the inclusion of the PJS method within the current accreditation programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]