Dataset Information

The evidence base for US joint commission hospital accreditation standards: cross sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the evidence upon which standards for hospital accreditation by The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (the Joint Commission) are based.

Design

Cross sectional study.

Setting

United States.

Participants

Four 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.

Interventions

From 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 measure

Strengths of recommendation for actionable standards.

Results

20 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.

Conclusions

In 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.

SUBMITTER: Ibrahim SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9215261 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere are few data comparing the drug management standards of the US and Canadian agencies that accredit health care institutions.ObjectiveTo evaluate the clarity and assessability of criteria in the drug management standards adopted by Accreditation Canada and the Joint Commission (United States).MethodsA 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsFew 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.

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:BackgroundOrganizational context is one factor influencing the translation of evidence into practice, but data pertaining to patients with acute stroke are limited. We aimed to determine the associations of organizational context in relation to four important evidence-based stroke care processes.MethodsThis was a mixed methods cross-sectional study. Among 19 hospitals in Queensland, Australia, a survey was conducted of the perceptions of stroke clinicians about their work using the Alberta Context Tool (ACT), a validated measure covering 10 concepts of organizational context, and with additional stroke-specific contextual questions. These data were linked to the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (AuSCR) to determine the relationship with receipt of evidence-based acute stroke care (acute stroke unit admission, use of thrombolysis for those with acute ischemic stroke, receipt of a written care plan on discharge, and prescription of antihypertensive medications on discharge) using quantile regression. Exploratory cluster analysis was used to categorize hospitals into high and low context groups based on all of the 10 ACT concepts. Differences in adherence to care processes between the two groups were examined.ResultsA total of 215 clinicians completed the survey (50% nurses, 37% allied health staff, 10% medical practitioners), with 81% being in their current role for at least 1?year. There was good reliability (? 0.83) within the cohort to allow pooling of professional groups. Greater ACT scores, especially for social capital (? 9.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.86 to 13.14) and culture (? 7.33, 95% CI 2.05 to 12.62), were associated with more patients receiving stroke unit care. There was no correlation between ACT concepts and other care processes. Working within higher compared to lower context environments was associated with greater proportions of patients receiving stroke unit care (88.5% vs. 69.0%) and being prescribed antihypertensive medication at discharge (62.5% vs. 52.0%). Staff from higher context hospitals were more likely to value medical and/or nursing leadership and stroke care protocols.ConclusionsOverall organizational context, and in particular aspects of culture and social capital, are associated with the delivery of some components of evidence-based stroke care, offering insights into potential pathways for improving the implementation of proven therapies.

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.