Dataset Information

A Pilot Comparative Study of the Clarity and Assessability of the Drug Management Standards of Accreditation Canada and the US Joint Commission.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There are few data comparing the drug management standards of the US and Canadian agencies that accredit health care institutions.

Objective

To evaluate the clarity and assessability of criteria in the drug management standards adopted by Accreditation Canada and the Joint Commission (United States).

Methods

A pilot study was conducted to compare the clarity and assessability of the criteria listed in the 2 standards. Criteria that were common to the 2008 versions of the Canadian and US drug management standards were identified. A panel of 12 health care professionals was assembled to independently rate the clarity (i.e., clear or unclear) and the assessability (i.e., assessable or not assessable) of each statement, using a validated comparative grid.

Results

In total, there were 143 Canadian standards and 103 US standards. Sixty-two (43%) of the 143 Canadian criteria could be directly paired with a US criterion, whereas 70 (68%) of the 103 US criteria could be paired with one or more Canadian criteria. Six of the US criteria were paired with more than one Canadian criterion, and 12 of the Canadian criteria could be paired with more than one US criterion. Four of the 22 themes in the Canadian standards had no equivalent criteria in the US standards. Panel members from the pharmaceutical practice group evaluated the clarity and assessability of the Canadian criteria more severely than panel members from the nursing practice group: 86% versus 95% of individual ratings were deemed "clear" by these two groups, respectively (p < 0.001) and 64% versus 88% of individual ratings were deemed "assessable" (p < 0.001). There were no criteria that were considered unclear or unassessable by all of the panel members.

Conclusions

Few data are available on drug management standards and their impact on health care. A better understanding of these standards, as well as comparisons of Canadian standards with those of other countries, might help in determining their clarity and assessability. A larger-scale study is required to validate the observations reported here.

SUBMITTER: Alemanni J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3093418 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Pilot Comparative Study of the Clarity and Assessability of the Drug Management Standards of Accreditation Canada and the US Joint Commission.

Alemanni Jordane J Brisseau Lionel L Lebel Denis D Vaillancourt Régis R Rocheleau Louis L Bussières Jean-François JF

The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy 20110301 2

<h4>Background</h4>There are few data comparing the drug management standards of the US and Canadian agencies that accredit health care institutions.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the clarity and assessability of criteria in the drug management standards adopted by Accreditation Canada and the Joint Commission (United States).<h4>Methods</h4>A pilot study was conducted to compare the clarity and assessability of the criteria listed in the 2 standards. Criteria that were common to the 2008 version ...[more]

PMID: 22479040

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the evidence upon which standards for hospital accreditation by The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (the Joint Commission) are based.DesignCross sectional study.SettingUnited States.ParticipantsFour Joint Commission R3 (requirement, rationale, and reference) reports released by July 2018 and intended to become effective between 1 July 2018 and 1 July 2019.InterventionsFrom each R3 report the associated standard and its specific elements of performance (or actionable standards) were extracted. If an actionable standard enumerated multiple requirements, these were separated into distinct components. Two investigators reviewed full text references, and each actionable standard was classified as either completely supported, partly supported, or not supported; Oxford evidence quality ratings were assigned; and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the strength of recommendations.Main outcome measureStrengths of recommendation for actionable standards.Results20 actionable standards with 76 distinct components were accompanied by 48 references. Of the 20 actionable standards, six (30%) were completely supported by cited references, six were partly supported (30%), and eight (40%) were not supported. Of the six directly supported actionable standards, one (17%) cited at least one reference of level 1 or 2 evidence, none cited at least one reference of level 3 evidence, and five (83%) cited references of level 4 or 5 evidence. Of the completely supported actionable standards, strength of recommendation in five was deemed GRADE D and in one was GRADE B.ConclusionsIn general, recent actionable standards issued by The Joint Commission are seldom supported by high quality data referenced within the issuing documents. The Joint Commission might consider being more transparent about the quality of evidence and underlying rationale supporting each of its recommendations, including clarifying when and why in certain instances it determines that lower level evidence is sufficient.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing evidence suggests that sustainable delivery of interprofessional education (IPE) has the potential to lead to interprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP), which in turn has the potential to lead to enhanced healthcare systems and improved patient-centered care health outcomes. To enhance IPE in Canada, the Accreditation of Interprofessional Health Education (AIPHE) project initiated collaborative efforts among accrediting organizations of six health professions to embed IPE language into their respective accreditation standards. To further understand the impact of the AIPHE project, this study evaluated the accountability of the IPE language currently embedded in Canadian health professions' accreditation standards documents and examined whether such language spanned the five accreditation standards domains identified in the AIPHE project.MethodsWe conducted a comparative content analysis to identify and examine IPE language within the "accountable" statements in the current accreditation standards for 11 Canadian health professions that met our eligibility criteria.Results and discussionA total of 77 IPE-relevant accountable statements were identified across 13 accreditation standards documents for the 11 health professions. The chiropractic, pharmacy, and physiotherapy documents represented nearly 50% (38/77) of all accountable statements. The accountable statements for pharmacy, dentistry, dietetics, and nursing (registered) spanned across three-to-four accreditation standards domains. The remaining nine professions' statements referred mostly to "Students" and "Educational program." Furthermore, the majority of accreditation standards documents failed to provide a definition of IPE, and those that did, were inconsistent across health professions.ConclusionsIt was encouraging to see frequent reference to IPE within the accreditation standards of the health professions involved in this study. The qualitative findings, however, suggest that the emphasis of these accountable statements is mainly on the students and educational program, potentially compromising the sustainability and development, implementation, and evaluation of this frequently misunderstood pedagogical approach. The findings and exemplary IPE-relevant accountable statements identified in this paper should be of interest to all relevant stakeholders including those countries, where IPE accreditation is still emerging, as a means to accelerate and strengthen achieving desired educational and health outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundMaternal and child health are internationally considered to be among the best measures for assessing health-care quality. The study was carried out with the following aims: 1) to assess the quality of perinatal care (PC) by measuring the frequencies of the five PC indicators developed by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) and comparing results with international standards; 2) to examine whether maternal, pregnancy care and neonatal characteristics could be factors associated with the quality of perinatal care hospital performance, measured through these indicators.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed medical charts of women over the age of 18 who experienced delivery in Gynecology/obstetrics wards between January-December 2016, and those of their newborns hospitalized in the Neonatology or Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) of a public non-teaching hospital in Catanzaro (Italy). Indicators were calculated according to the methodology specified in the manual for JCAHO measures. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to test the independent association of maternal, pregnancy care and neonatal characteristics on the adherence to JCAHO PC indicators.ResultsThe records of 1943 women and 1974 newborns were identified and reviewed in order to be included in at least one of the PC indicators. Elective/early-term delivery, was performed in 27.6% of eligible women, far from the recommended goal (0%); cesarean section in nulliparous women with a term, singleton baby in a vertex position exceeded the suggested target of <?24% and the adherence to antenatal steroids administration was suboptimal (87%). Results of the exclusive breastfeeding indicator achieved a better performance (81%) and compliance with the PC-04 indicator was satisfactory with only 0.4% healthcare-associated bloodstream infection developed in eligible newborns.ConclusionsThis is the first study performed in Italy that has evaluated the quality of PC by using all the five JCAHO indicators. The application of this feasible set of indicators allowed us to measure several aspects of PC for which there is no standardized monitoring system in Italy. Our findings revealed significant deficiencies in the adherence to recommended processes of PC and suggest that there is still substantial work required to improve care.

Project description:ObjectivesAccreditation in France relies on a mandatory 4-year cycle of self-assessment and a peer review of 82 standards, among which 14 focus priority standards (FPS). Hospitals are also required to measure yearly quality indicators (QIs-5 in 2010). On advice given by the accreditation committee of HAS (Haute Autorité en Santé), based on surveyors proposals and relying mostly on compliance to standards, accreditation decisions are taken by the board of HAS. Accreditation is still perceived by hospitals as a burdensome process and a simplification would be welcomed. The hypothesis was that a more limited number of criteria might give sufficient amount of information on hospitals overall quality level, appraised today by accreditation decisions.DesignThe accuracy of predictions of accreditation decisions given by a model, Partial Least Square-2 Discriminant Analysis (PLS2-DA), using only the results of FPS and QIs was measured. Accreditation decisions (full accreditation (A), recommendations or reservation (B), remit decision or non-accreditation (C)), results of FPS and QIs were considered qualitative variables. Stability was assessed by leave one out cross validation (LOOCV).Setting and participantsAll French 489 acute care organisations (ACO) accredited between June 2010 and January 2012 were considered, 304 of them having a rehabilitation care sector (RCS).ResultsAccuracy of prediction of accreditation decisions was good (89% of ACOs and 91% of ACO-RCS well classified). Stability of results appeared satisfactory when using LOOCV (87% of ACOs and 89% of ACO-RCS well classified). Identification of worse hospitals was correct (90% of ACOs and 97% of ACO-RCS predicted C were actually C).ConclusionsUsing PLS2-DA with a limited number of criteria (QIs and FPS) provides an accurate prediction of accreditation decisions, especially for underperforming hospitals. This could support accreditation committees which give advices on accreditation decisions, and allow fast-track handling of 'safe' reports.

Project description:Background: Pain from coxofemoral joint (CFJ) osteoarthritis (OA) characteristic of canine hip dysplasia (CHD) afflicts many dogs. Intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration is a common CFJ OA comorbidity. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) administration is standard for treatment of pain from degenerative joint disease. Potential side effects and tolerance from prolonged administration drive efforts to identify compounds that may be alternatives to or combined with NSAIDs. Agmatine, decarboxylated arginine, reportedly alleviates neuropathic pain, a likely component of OA pain. The objective of this study was to compare treatment response to agmatine and carprofen in dogs with varying degrees of CFJ OA with or without IVD degeneration and to test the hypothesis that agmatine improves hindlimb use comparably to carprofen and more than placebo. Methods: Nine hound-type dogs received oral carprofen (4.4 mg/kg, sid) for 7 days. Six months later, oral agmatine sulfate (25 mg/kg, bid) or placebo (hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, bid) was administered to the same dogs for 28 days with a 2 week washout period between treatments. Validated pain assessment scores were measured before treatment and every seven days throughout the treatment periods. Serum chemistry levels and ground reaction forces (GRF) were quantified before and after each treatment period. A board-certified radiologist quantified radiographic CFJ OA based on Orthopedic Foundation for Animals criteria and IVD degeneration on magnetic resonance images. GRFs were compared among treatments at each time point and among time points for each treatment. Results: There were no detectable adverse effects with any treatment. Significant results included improved GRFs in dogs with mild CFJ OA (N = 3) following agmatine administration compared to carprofen or placebo and a trend for improved GRFs in dogs with moderate CFJ OA (N = 2) following carprofen vs. agmatine or placebo. Neither agmatine nor carprofen improved GRFs in dogs with severe CFJ OA (N = 4). The GRFs improved in dogs with IVD degeneration (N = 3) following carprofen treatment compared to agmatine or placebo regardless of CFJ OA score, but no effect was observed in dogs with normal lumbar spines (N = 6). Conclusions: Results support agmatine over carprofen treatment to improve limb use in dogs with early or mild CFJ OA, while carprofen may be the better choice for dogs with moderate CFJ OA or IVD degeneration regardless of CFJ OA severity.

Dataset Information

A Pilot Comparative Study of the Clarity and Assessability of the Drug Management Standards of Accreditation Canada and the US Joint Commission.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A Pilot Comparative Study of the Clarity and Assessability of the Drug Management Standards of Accreditation Canada and the US Joint Commission.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets