Dataset Information

The impact of hospital accreditation on the quality of healthcare: a systematic literature review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Accreditation 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

We 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.

Conclusion

There 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.

SUBMITTER: Hussein M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8493726 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGlobal spending on health was continuing to rise over the past 20 years. To reduce the growth rates, alleviate information asymmetry, and improve the efficiency of healthcare markets, global health systems have initiated price and quality transparency tools in the hospital industry in the last two decades. OBJECTIVE : The objective of this review is to synthesize whether, to what extent, and how hospital price and quality transparency tools affected 1) the price of healthcare procedures and services, 2) the payments of consumers, and 3) the premium of health insurance plans bonding with hospital networks.MethodsA literature search of EMBASE, Web of Science, Econlit, Scopus, Pubmed, CINAHL, and PsychINFO was conducted, from inception to Oct 31, 2021. Reference lists and tracked citations of retrieved articles were hand-searched. Study characteristics were extracted, and included studies were scored through a risk of bias assessment framework. This systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO with registration No. CRD42022319070.ResultsOf 2157 records identified, 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. Near 40 percent of studies focused on hospital quality transparency tools, and more than 90 percent of studies were from the US. Hospital price transparency reduced the price of laboratory and imaging tests except for office-visit services. Hospital quality transparency declined the level or growth rates of healthcare spending, while it adversely and significantly raised the price of healthcare services and consumers' payment in higher-ranked or rated facilities, which was referred to as the reputation premium in the healthcare industry. Hospital quality transparency not only leveraged private insurers bonding with a higher-rated hospital network to increase premiums, but also induced their anticipated pricing behaviors.ConclusionHospital price and quality transparency was not effective as expected. Future research should explore the understudied consequences of hospital quality transparency programs, such as the reputation/rating premium and its policy intervention.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate whether hospital re-accreditation improves quality, patient safety and reliability over three accreditation cycles by testing the accreditation life cycle model on quality measures. DESIGN:The validity of the life cycle model was tested by calibrating interrupted time series (ITS) regression equations for 27 quality measures. The change in the variation of quality over the three accreditation cycles was evaluated using the Levene's test. SETTING:A 650-bed tertiary academic hospital in Abu Dhabi, UAE. PARTICIPANTS:Each month (over 96 months), a simple random sample of 10% of patient records was selected and audited resulting in a total of 388?800 observations from 14?500 records. INTERVENTIONS:The impact of hospital accreditation on the 27 quality measures was observed for 96 months, 1-year preaccreditation (2007) and 3?years postaccreditation for each of the three accreditation cycles (2008, 2011 and 2014). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The life cycle model was evaluated by aggregating the data for 27 quality measures to produce a composite score (YC) and to fit an ITS regression equation to the unweighted monthly mean of the series. RESULTS:The results provide some evidence for the validity of the four phases of the life cycle namely, the initiation phase, the presurvey phase, the postaccreditation slump and the stagnation phase. Furthermore, the life cycle model explains 87% of the variation in quality compliance measures (R2=0.87). The best-fit ITS model contains two significant variables (?1 and ?3) (p?0.001). The Levene's test (p?0.05) demonstrated a significant reduction in variation of the quality measures (YC) with subsequent accreditation cycles. CONCLUSION:The study demonstrates that accreditation has the capacity to sustain improvements over the accreditation cycle. The significant reduction in the variation of the quality measures (YC) with subsequent accreditation cycles indicates that accreditation supports the goal of high reliability.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionStandards 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.

Project description:BackgroundTechnological advancements have opened the path for many technology providers to easily develop and introduce eHealth tools to the public. The use of these tools is increasingly recognized as a critical quality driver in health care; however, choosing a quality tool from the myriad of tools available for a specific health need does not come without challenges.ObjectiveThis review aimed to systematically investigate the literature to understand the different approaches and criteria used to assess the quality and impact of eHealth tools by considering sociotechnical factors (from technical, social, and organizational perspectives).MethodsA structured search was completed following the participants, intervention, comparators, and outcomes framework. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and ProQuest databases for studies published between January 2012 and January 2022 in English, which yielded 675 results, of which 40 (5.9%) studies met the inclusion criteria. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were followed to ensure a systematic process. Extracted data were analyzed using NVivo (QSR International), with a thematic analysis and narrative synthesis of emergent themes.ResultsSimilar measures from the different papers, frameworks, and initiatives were aggregated into 36 unique criteria grouped into 13 clusters. Using the sociotechnical approach, we classified the relevant criteria into technical, social, and organizational assessment criteria. Technical assessment criteria were grouped into 5 clusters: technical aspects, functionality, content, data management, and design. Social assessment criteria were grouped into 4 clusters: human centricity, health outcomes, visible popularity metrics, and social aspects. Organizational assessment criteria were grouped into 4 clusters: sustainability and scalability, health care organization, health care context, and developer.ConclusionsThis review builds on the growing body of research that investigates the criteria used to assess the quality and impact of eHealth tools and highlights the complexity and challenges facing these initiatives. It demonstrates that there is no single framework that is used uniformly to assess the quality and impact of eHealth tools. It also highlights the need for a more comprehensive approach that balances the social, organizational, and technical assessment criteria in a way that reflects the complexity and interdependence of the health care ecosystem and is aligned with the factors affecting users' adoption to ensure uptake and adherence in the long term.