Dataset Information

Unannounced versus announced hospital surveys: a nationwide cluster-randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of unannounced versus announced surveys in detecting non-compliance with accreditation standards in public hospitals.

Design

A nationwide cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Setting and participants

All public hospitals in Denmark were invited. Twenty-three hospitals (77%) (3 university hospitals, 5 psychiatric hospitals and 15 general hospitals) agreed to participate.

Intervention

Twelve hospitals were randomized to receive unannounced surveys (intervention group) and eleven hospitals to receive announced surveys (control group). We hypothesized that the hospitals receiving the unannounced surveys would reveal a higher degree of non-compliance with accreditation standards than the hospitals receiving announced surveys. Nine surveyors trained and employed by the Danish Institute for Quality and Accreditation in Healthcare (IKAS) were randomized into teams and conducted all surveys.

Main outcome measure

The outcome was the surveyors' assessment of the hospitals' level of compliance with 113 performance indicators-an abbreviated set of the Danish Healthcare Quality Programme (DDKM) version 2, covering organizational standards, patient pathway standards and patient safety standards. Compliance with performance indicators was analyzed using binomial regression analysis with bootstrapped robust standard errors.

Results

In all, 16 202 measurements were acceptable for data analysis. The risk of observing non-compliance with performance indicators for the intervention group compared with the control group was statistically insignificant (risk difference (RD) = -0.6 percentage points [-2.51-1.31], P = 0.54). A converged analysis of the six patient safety critical standards, requiring 100% compliance to gain accreditation status revealed no statistically significant difference (RD = -0.78 percentage points [-4.01-2.44], P = 0.99).

Conclusions

Unannounced hospital surveys were not more effective than announced surveys in detecting quality problems in Danish hospitals.

Trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02348567, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02348567?term=NCT02348567.

SUBMITTER: Ehlers LH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5890868 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Unannounced versus announced hospital surveys: a nationwide cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Ehlers Lars Holger LH Simonsen Katherina Beltoft KB Jensen Morten Berg MB Rasmussen Gitte Sand GS Olesen Anne Vingaard AV

International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care 20170601 3

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the effectiveness of unannounced versus announced surveys in detecting non-compliance with accreditation standards in public hospitals.<h4>Design</h4>A nationwide cluster-randomized controlled trial.<h4>Setting and participants</h4>All public hospitals in Denmark were invited. Twenty-three hospitals (77%) (3 university hospitals, 5 psychiatric hospitals and 15 general hospitals) agreed to participate.<h4>Intervention</h4>Twelve hospitals were randomized to receive u ...[more]

PMID: 28419255

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIn the United States, hospitals receive accreditation through unannounced on-site inspections (ie, surveys) by The Joint Commission (TJC), which are high-pressure periods to demonstrate compliance with best practices. No research has addressed whether the potential changes in behavior and heightened vigilance during a TJC survey are associated with changes in patient outcomes.ObjectiveTo assess whether heightened vigilance during survey weeks is associated with improved patient outcomes compared with nonsurvey weeks, particularly in major teaching hospitals.Design, setting, and participantsQuasi-randomized analysis of Medicare admissions at 1984 surveyed hospitals from calendar year 2008 through 2012 in the period from 3 weeks before to 3 weeks after surveys. Outcomes between surveys and surrounding weeks were compared, adjusting for beneficiaries' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, with subanalyses for major teaching hospitals. Data analysis was conducted from January 1 to September 1, 2016.ExposuresHospitalization during a TJC survey week vs nonsurvey weeks.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were rates of Clostridium difficile infections, in-hospital cardiac arrest mortality, and Patient Safety Indicators (PSI) 90 and PSI 4 measure events.ResultsThe study sample included 244 787 and 1 462 339 admissions during survey and nonsurvey weeks with similar patient characteristics, reason for admission, and in-hospital procedures across both groups. There were 811 598 (55.5%) women in the nonsurvey weeks (mean [SD] age, 72.84 [14.5] years) and 135 857 (55.5%) in the survey weeks (age, 72.76 [14.5] years). Overall, there was a significant reversible decrease in 30-day mortality for admissions during survey (7.03%) vs nonsurvey weeks (7.21%) (adjusted difference, -0.12%; 95% CI, -0.22% to -0.01%). This observed decrease was larger than 99.5% of mortality changes among 1000 random permutations of hospital survey date combinations, suggesting that observed mortality changes were not attributable to chance alone. Observed mortality reductions were largest in major teaching hospitals, where mortality fell from 6.41% to 5.93% during survey weeks (adjusted difference, -0.38%; 95% CI, -0.74% to -0.03%), a 5.9% relative decrease. We observed no significant differences in admission volume, length of stay, or secondary outcomes.Conclusions and relevancePatients admitted to hospitals during TJC survey weeks have significantly lower mortality than during nonsurvey weeks, particularly in major teaching hospitals. These results suggest that changes in practice occurring during periods of surveyor observation may meaningfully affect patient mortality.

Project description:Purpose:Non-specific low back pain (NLBP) causes an enormous burden to patients and tremendous costs for health care systems worldwide. Frequently, treatments are not oriented to existing guidelines. In the future, digital elements may be promising tools to support guideline-oriented treatment in a broader range of patients. The cluster-randomized controlled "Rise-uP" trial aims to support a General Practitioner (GP)-centered back pain treatment (Registration No: DRKS00015048) and includes the following digital elements: 1) electronic case report form (eCRF), 2) a treatment algorithm for guideline-based clinical decision making of GPs, 3) teleconsultation between GPs and pain specialists for patients at risk for development of chronic back pain, and 4) a multidisciplinary mobile back pain app for all patients (Kaia App). Methods:In the Rise-uP trial, 111 GPs throughout Bavaria (southern Germany) were randomized either to the Rise-uP intervention group (IG) or the control group (CG). Rise-uP patients were treated according to the guideline-oriented Rise-uP treatment algorithm. Standard of care was applied to the CG patients with consideration given to the "National guideline for the treatment of non-specific back pain". Pain rating on the numeric rating scale was the primary outcome measure. Psychological measures (anxiety, depression, stress), functional ability, as well as physical and mental wellbeing, served as secondary outcomes. All values were assessed at the beginning of the treatment and at 3-month follow-ups. Results:In total, 1245 patients (IG: 933; CG: 312) with NLBP were included in the study. The Rise-uP group showed a significantly stronger pain reduction compared to the control group after 3 months (IG: M=-33.3% vs CG: M=-14.3%). The Rise-uP group was also superior in secondary outcomes. Furthermore, high-risk patients who received a teleconsultation showed a larger decrease in pain intensity (-43.5%) than CG patients (-14.3%). ANCOVA analysis showed that the impact of teleconsultation was mediated by an increased training activity in the Kaia App. Conclusion:Our results show the superiority of the innovative digital treatment algorithm realized in Rise-uP, even though the CG also received relevant active treatment by their GPs. This provides clear evidence that digital treatment may be a promising tool to improve the quality of treatment of non-specific back pain. In 2021, analyses of routine data from statutory health insurances will enable us to investigate the cost-effectiveness of digital treatment.

Project description:BackgroundDiabetes and hypertension are increasingly important population health challenges in Eswatini. Prior to this project, healthcare for these conditions was primarily provided through physician-led teams at tertiary care facilities and accessed by only a small fraction of people living with diabetes or hypertension. This trial tests and evaluates two community-based healthcare service models implemented at the national level, which involve health care personnel at primary care facilities and utilize the country's public sector community health worker cadre (the rural health motivators [RHMs]) to help generate demand for care.MethodsThis study is a cluster-randomized controlled trial with two treatment arms and one control arm. The unit of randomization is a primary healthcare facility along with all RHMs (and their corresponding service areas) assigned to the facility. A total of 84 primary healthcare facilities were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to the three study arms. The first treatment arm implements differentiated service delivery (DSD) models at the clinic and community levels with the objective of improving treatment uptake and adherence among clients with diabetes or hypertension. In the second treatment arm, community distribution points (CDPs), which previously targeted clients living with human immunodeficiency virus, extend their services to clients with diabetes or hypertension by allowing them to pick up medications and obtain routine nurse-led follow-up visits in their community rather than at the healthcare facility. In both treatment arms, RHMs visit households regularly, screen clients at risk, provide personalized counseling, and refer clients to either primary care clinics or the nearest CDP. In the control arm, primary care clinics provide diabetes and hypertension care services but without the involvement of RHMs and the implementation of DSD models or CDPs. The primary endpoints are mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and systolic blood pressure among adults aged 40 years and older living with diabetes or hypertension, respectively. These endpoints will be assessed through a household survey in the RHM service areas. In addition to the health impact evaluation, we will conduct studies on cost-effectiveness, syndemics, and the intervention's implementation processes.DiscussionThis study has the ambition to assist the Eswatini government in selecting the most effective delivery model for diabetes and hypertension care. The evidence generated with this national-level cluster-randomized controlled trial may also prove useful to policy makers in the wider Sub-Saharan African region.Trial registrationNCT04183413. Trial registration date: December 3, 2019.

Project description:BackgroundTuberculosis is a major public health concern resulting in high rates of morbidity and mortality worldwide, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Tuberculosis requires a long and intensive course of treatment. Thus, various approaches, including patient empowerment, education and counselling sessions, and involvement of family members and community workers, have been suggested for improving treatment adherence and outcome. The current randomized controlled trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness over usual care of an innovative multicomponent people-centered tuberculosis-care strategy in Armenia.Methods/designInnovative Approach to Tuberculosis care in Armenia is an open-label, stratified cluster randomized controlled trial with two parallel arms. Tuberculosis outpatient centers are the clusters assigned to intervention and control arms. Drug-sensitive tuberculosis patients in the continuation phase of treatment in the intervention arm and their family members participate in a short educational and counselling session to raise their knowledge, decrease tuberculosis-related stigma, and enhance treatment adherence. Patients receive the required medications for one week during the weekly visits to the tuberculosis outpatient centers. Additionally, patients receive daily Short Message Service (SMS) reminders to take their medications and daily phone calls to assure adherence and monitoring of treatment potential side effects. Control-arm patients follow the World Health Organization--recommended directly observed treatment strategy, including daily visits to tuberculosis outpatient centers for drug-intake. The primary outcome is physician-reported treatment outcome. Patients' knowledge, depression, quality of life, within-family tuberculosis-related stigma, family social support, and self-reported adherence to tuberculosis treatment are secondary outcomes.DiscussionImproved adherence and tuberculosis treatment outcomes can strengthen tuberculosis control and thereby forestall tuberculosis and multidrug resistant tuberculosis epidemics. Positive findings on effectiveness of this innovative tuberculosis treatment people-centered approach will support its adoption in countries with similar healthcare and economic profiles.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT02082340. Date of registration: 4 March 2014.

Dataset Information

Unannounced versus announced hospital surveys: a nationwide cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Objective

Design

Setting and participants

Intervention

Main outcome measure

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration number

Publications

Unannounced versus announced hospital surveys: a nationwide cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets