The impact of self-assessment and surveyor assessment on site visit performance under the National General Practice Accreditation scheme.

Objective: There is a need to undertake more proactive and in-depth analyses of general practice accreditation processes. Two areas that have been highlighted as areas of potential inconsistency are the self-assessment and surveyor assessment of indicators. Methods: The data encompass 757 accreditation visits made between December 2020 and July 2022. A mixed-effect multilevel logistic regression model determined the association between attempt of the self-assessment and indicator conformity from the surveyor assessment. Furthermore, we present a contrast of the rate of indicator conformity between surveyors as an approximation of the inter-assessor consistency from the site visit. Results: Two hundred and seventy-seven (37%) practices did not attempt or accurately report conformity to any indicators at the self-assessment. Association between attempting the self-assessment and the rate of indicator non-conformity at the site visit failed to reach statistical significance (OR = 0.90 [95% CI = 1.14–0.72], P = 0.28). A small number of surveyors (N = 9/34) demonstrated statistically significant differences in the rate of indicator conformity compared to the mean of all surveyors. Conclusions: Attempt of the self-assessment did not predict indicator conformity at the site visit overall. Appropriate levels of consistency of indicator assessment between surveyors at the site visit were identified. What is known about the topic? There is a need to undertake more proactive and in-depth analyses of the general practice accreditation process and outcomes to improve the quality and safety within this healthcare sector. What does this paper add? Attempt of the self-assessment does not predict indicator conformity at the site visit overall, and appropriate levels of consistency of indicator assessment between surveyors at the site visit were identified. What are the implications for practitioners? We present empirical evidence as to the consistency of assessment with general practice accreditation to inform future standards and (re)accreditation assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]