Dataset Information

The standard of healthcare accreditation standards: a review of empirical research underpinning their development and impact.

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.

SUBMITTER: Greenfield D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3520756 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The standard of healthcare accreditation standards: a review of empirical research underpinning their development and impact.

Greenfield David D Pawsey Marjorie M Hinchcliff Reece R Moldovan Max M Braithwaite Jeffrey J

BMC health services research 20120920

<h4>Background</h4>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 scr ...[more]

PMID: 22995152

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has presented many multi-faceted challenges to the maintenance of service quality and safety, highlighting the need for resilient and responsive healthcare systems more than ever before. This review examined empirical investigations of Resilient Health Care (RHC) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic with the aim to: identify key areas of research; synthesise findings on capacities that develop RHC across system levels (micro, meso, macro); and identify reported adverse consequences of the effort of maintaining system performance on system agents (healthcare workers, patients).MethodsThree academic databases were searched (Medline, EMBASE, Scopus) from 1st January 2020 to 30th August 2022 using keywords pertaining to: systems resilience and related concepts; healthcare and healthcare settings; and COVID-19. Capacities that developed and enhanced systems resilience were synthesised using a hybrid inductive-deductive thematic analysis.ResultsFifty publications were included in this review. Consistent with previous research, studies from high-income countries and the use of qualitative methods within the context of hospitals, dominated the included studies. However, promising developments have been made, with an emergence of studies conducted at the macro-system level, including the development of quantitative tools and indicator-based modelling approaches, and the increased involvement of low- and middle-income countries in research (LMIC). Concordant with previous research, eight key resilience capacities were identified that can support, develop or enhance resilient performance, namely: structure, alignment, coordination, learning, involvement, risk awareness, leadership, and communication. The need for healthcare workers to constantly learn and make adaptations, however, had potentially adverse physical and emotional consequences for healthcare workers, in addition to adverse effects on routine patient care.ConclusionsThis review identified an upsurge in new empirical studies on health system resilience associated with COVID-19. The pandemic provided a unique opportunity to examine RHC in practice, and uncovered emerging new evidence on RHC theory and system factors that contribute to resilient performance at micro, meso and macro levels. These findings will enable leaders and other stakeholders to strengthen health system resilience when responding to future challenges and unexpected events.

Project description:BackgroundAccreditation is viewed as a reputable tool to evaluate and enhance the quality of health care. However, its effect on performance and outcomes remains unclear. This review aimed to identify and analyze the evidence on the impact of hospital accreditation.MethodsWe systematically searched electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, MEDLINE (OvidSP), CDSR, CENTRAL, ScienceDirect, SSCI, RSCI, SciELO, and KCI) and other sources using relevant subject headings. We included peer-reviewed quantitative studies published over the last two decades, irrespective of its design or language. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, two reviewers independently screened initially identified articles, reviewed the full-text of potentially relevant studies, extracted necessary data, and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using a validated tool. The accreditation effects were synthesized and categorized thematically into six impact themes.ResultsWe screened a total of 17,830 studies, of which 76 empirical studies that examined the impact of accreditation met our inclusion criteria. These studies were methodologically heterogeneous. Apart from the effect of accreditation on healthcare workers and particularly on job stress, our results indicate a consistent positive effect of hospital accreditation on safety culture, process-related performance measures, efficiency, and the patient length of stay, whereas employee satisfaction, patient satisfaction and experience, and 30-day hospital readmission rate were found to be unrelated to accreditation. Paradoxical results regarding the impact of accreditation on mortality rate and healthcare-associated infections hampered drawing firm conclusions on these outcome measures.ConclusionThere is reasonable evidence to support the notion that compliance with accreditation standards has multiple plausible benefits in improving the performance in the hospital setting. Despite inconclusive evidence on causality, introducing hospital accreditation schemes stimulates performance improvement and patient safety. Efforts to incentivize and modernize accreditation are recommended to move towards institutionalization and sustaining the performance gains. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020167863.

Project description:ObjectivesA key barrier in supporting health research capacity development (HRCD) is the lack of empirical measurement of competencies to assess skills and identify gaps in research activities. An effective tool to measure HRCD in healthcare workers would help inform teams to undertake more locally led research. The objective of this systematic review is to identify tools measuring healthcare workers' individual capacities to conduct research.DesignSystematic review and narrative synthesis using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist for reporting systematic reviews and narrative synthesis and the Critical Appraisals Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for qualitative studies.Data sources11 databases were searched from inception to 16 January 2020. The first 10 pages of Google Scholar results were also screened.Eligibility criteriaWe included papers describing the use of tools/to measure/assess HRCD at an individual level among healthcare workers involved in research. Qualitative, mixed and quantitative methods were all eligible. Search was limited to English language only.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently screened and reviewed studies using Covidence software, and performed quality assessments using the extraction log validated against the CASP qualitative checklist. The content method was used to define a narrative synthesis.ResultsThe titles and abstracts for 7474 unique records were screened and the full texts of 178 references were reviewed. 16 papers were selected: 7 quantitative studies; 1 qualitative study; 5 mixed methods studies; and 3 studies describing the creation of a tool. Tools with different levels of accuracy in measuring HRCD in healthcare workers at the individual level were described. The Research Capacity and Culture tool and the 'Research Spider' tool were the most commonly defined. Other tools designed for ad hoc interventions with good generalisability potential were identified. Three papers described health research core competency frameworks. All tools measured HRCD in healthcare workers at an individual level with the majority adding a measurement at the team/organisational level, or data about perceived barriers and motivators for conducting health research.ConclusionsCapacity building is commonly identified with pre/postintervention evaluations without using a specific tool. This shows the need for a clear distinction between measuring the outcomes of training activities in a team/organisation, and effective actions promoting HRCD. This review highlights the lack of globally applicable comprehensive tools to provide comparable, standardised and consistent measurements of research competencies.Prospero registration numberCRD42019122310.

Project description:BackgroundA new physical activity and sedentary behaviour accreditation standard criterion for childcare settings was introduced by the provincial government in Alberta, Canada. The primary objective of this study was to examine if changes for in-care physical activity and sedentary time (ST) differed between centres in and around Edmonton, Alberta after implementing the new accreditation standards and non-accredited control centres in and around Ottawa, Ontario. Secondary objectives were to examine whether baseline age group (toddler, preschooler) or the childcare environment moderated any group differences in change of the primary outcomes. Furthermore, accreditation and control group differences in change of children's body mass index (BMI) Z-scores or cognitive development as well as educators' perceptions of the primary outcomes were explored.MethodsParticipants were 252 toddlers (19-35 months) and preschoolers (36-60 months) in childcare centres from Alberta (n = 11) and Ontario (n = 8) in the supporting Healthy physical AcTive CHildcare setting (HATCH) study. In-care ST, light-intensity physical activity (LPA), and moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA) were accelerometer-derived before and 6 months after the implementation of the new standards. At both time points, cognitive development (working memory, expressive vocabulary), heights, and weights were measured, and BMI Z-scores were calculated. Additionally, the childcare environment was observed using the Environment and Policy Assessment and Observation (EPAO) and Movement Environment Rating Scale (MOVERS) tools. Demographic characteristics were parent-reported and weather variables were derived from Environment Canada data. Mixed models were conducted.ResultsIn adjusted models (n = 241), change in children's in-care ST (B = -0.07, 95%CI: - 1.43,1.29), LPA (B = 0.08, 95%CI: - 0.89,1.05), and log-transformed MVPA (B = 0.01, 95%CI: - 0.09,0.11) were not significantly different between accreditation and control groups. Age group and the childcare environment were not moderators. Significant increases in BMI Z-score (B = 0.19, 95%CI: 0.03,0.35) and high working memory (OR = 3.24, 95%CI: 1.32,7.97) were observed in the accreditation group and significant increases in expressive vocabulary (B = 3.18, 95%CI: 0.05,6.30) were observed in the control group.ConclusionsThe new accreditation criterion may not significantly change physical activity or ST in childcare settings and therefore may not explain findings for BMI Z-scores and cognitive development. Additional training and resources may be needed.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare accreditation is a widely implemented tool used to enhance the quality of care and underpin quality control. However, research is sparse on the accreditation process in general practice. The aim of this study was to explore how team-based implementation activities preceding accreditation were associated with self-perceived improvements in emergency preparedness (preparedness for urgent disease and cardiac arrest) and handling of prescription renewals in Danish general practice.MethodsGPs (general practitioners) completed a questionnaire exploring practice-team activities conducted to implement two specific accreditation standards and the related improvements as perceived by the GPs. The following implementation activities were selected, inspired by Normalization Process Theory: Common understanding (obtaining a common understanding of the purpose of implementing changes according to the accreditation standard), key person (assigning a key person responsible for working with the standard), and easy integration (finding it easy to integrate changes into existing working procedures). Data were analysed with logistic regression, and adjusted analyses included practice type, number of GP partners, number of staff, training site for junior GPs and administrative region.ResultsThe total response rate was 74% (n = 920). Around 80% of the clinics reported having conducted team-based implementation activities. Almost half of the clinics (48%) reported perceived improvements in the emergency preparedness, and 30% reported perceived improvements in the handling of prescription renewals. Obtaining a common understanding was found to have a strong, significant association with perceived improvements in the emergency preparedness (OR = 5.07 (3.06-8.40)) and handling of prescription renewals (OR = 3.66 (2.07-6.46)). Easy integration of changes was also significantly associated with improvements in both emergency preparedness (OR = 1.88 (1.24-2.85)) and handling of prescription renewals (OR = 2.34 (1.44-3.79)), whereas assigning a key person was only significantly associated with improved emergency preparedness (OR = 1.95 (1.19-3.19)).ConclusionClinical quality initiatives that involve collaboration within a practice team are more likely to cause improvements if specific team-based implementation activities are conducted. It is particularly important to facilitate a common understanding of the purpose of the initiative. Therefore, external support for quality initiatives aiming at the practice level in general practice should facilitate such team-based activities.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasingly, researchers need to demonstrate the impact of their research to their sponsors, funders, and fellow academics. However, the most appropriate way of measuring the impact of healthcare research is subject to debate. We aimed to identify the existing methodological frameworks used to measure healthcare research impact and to summarise the common themes and metrics in an impact matrix.Methods and findingsTwo independent investigators systematically searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL+), the Health Management Information Consortium, and the Journal of Research Evaluation from inception until May 2017 for publications that presented a methodological framework for research impact. We then summarised the common concepts and themes across methodological frameworks and identified the metrics used to evaluate differing forms of impact. Twenty-four unique methodological frameworks were identified, addressing 5 broad categories of impact: (1) 'primary research-related impact', (2) 'influence on policy making', (3) 'health and health systems impact', (4) 'health-related and societal impact', and (5) 'broader economic impact'. These categories were subdivided into 16 common impact subgroups. Authors of the included publications proposed 80 different metrics aimed at measuring impact in these areas. The main limitation of the study was the potential exclusion of relevant articles, as a consequence of the poor indexing of the databases searched.ConclusionsThe measurement of research impact is an essential exercise to help direct the allocation of limited research resources, to maximise research benefit, and to help minimise research waste. This review provides a collective summary of existing methodological frameworks for research impact, which funders may use to inform the measurement of research impact and researchers may use to inform study design decisions aimed at maximising the short-, medium-, and long-term impact of their research.

Dataset Information

The standard of healthcare accreditation standards: a review of empirical research underpinning their development and impact.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

The standard of healthcare accreditation standards: a review of empirical research underpinning their development and impact.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets