Highlighting efficiency and redundancy in the Royal Australian College of General Practice standards for accreditation.

Objectives: Accreditation to standards developed by the Royal Australian College of General Practice provides assurance to the community of the quality and safety of general practices in Australia. The objective of this study was to conduct an empirical evaluation of the 5th edition standards. Minimal empirically driven evaluation of the standards has been conducted since their publication in 2020. Methods: Data encompass consecutive Australian general practice accreditation assessments between December 2020 and July 2022 recorded from a single accrediting agency. Met and not met compliance (binary) scores for 124 indicators evaluated at the site visit were recorded. A subset of indicators derived from a selection of existing and consistently non-conformant indicators within each criterion was generated. Concordance between the indicator subset and the criterion was assessed to determine the predictive ability of the indicator subset in distinguishing practices who are conformant to the entire criterion. Results: A total of 757 general practices were included in the analysis. On average, 113.69 (s.d. = 8.16) of 124 indicators were evaluated as conformant at the site visit. In total, 52 (42%) indicators were required to obtain a true positive conformity rate above 95% for all criterions of the standards. For criterion 1 (General Practice 1) conformity to the entire criterion (nine indicators; >95% true positive rate) could be obtained by including 2/9 indicators (C1-1a and C1-2a). Conclusion: Our results identified that indicator non-conformity was driven by a small proportion of indicators and identifying a subset of these consistently non-conformant indicators predicted a true positive rate above 95% at the criterion level. What is known about the topic? Minimal empirical evaluation of the 5th edition standards for accreditation have occurred since their implementation. What does this paper add? Our findings suggest that more than half of the indicators currently do not adequately distinguish practices at the site assessment. What are the implications for practitioners? These findings may suggest that a review of individual indicators and the standards structure is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]