Perceptions, Attitudes, and Barriers towards the Use of Central Board for Accreditation of Healthcare Institutions (CBAHI) Standards among Saudi Healthcare Providers

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background: Quality improvement is a strategic priority for all healthcare systems. However, the engagement of healthcare providers in pursuing accreditation plays a critical role in integrating standards into routine practice. Therefore, the current study assessed the perceptions, attitudes, and barriers towards using the Central Board for Accreditation of Healthcare Institutions (CBAHI) standards among Saudi healthcare providers. Method: This cross-sectional study was conducted in 2023 among a representative sample (364) of Saudi healthcare providers (both genders, aged 20–60) working at twenty governmental CBAHI-accredited hospitals in Saudi Arabia. The study participants were selected using a cluster random sampling method. Data regarding the perceptions, attitudes, and barriers toward using CBAHI standards among Saudi healthcare providers were evaluated using a validated questionnaire. Additional information regarding demographic–socioeconomic variables was obtained with an interview-based questionnaire. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 28. Results: A total of 364 healthcare providers participated in the current study. Of them, 54.4% were males, and 45.6% were females. Almost half (48.6%) of the study participants held bachelor’s degrees. For the variables of age group, marital status, monthly income, and years of work experience, statistically significant associations were found between males and females (p-value < 0.05). The means of overall item agreement percentage of the participating healthcare providers for perceptions and attitudes towards using CBAHI standards and attitudes towards using CBAHI standards as a tool for quality improvement were 80.1%, 76.4%, and 72.0%, respectively. The highest item agreement percentage of the participating healthcare providers regarding the barriers that inhibit the hospital from obtaining the full benefit from the CBAHI accreditation was for the inexpedient IT tools (59.6%). Conclusion: The current study’s results demonstrated accepted perceptions and attitudes toward using CBAHI standards among Saudi healthcare providers. In addition, the identified barriers should be alleviated to improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of the hospitals in Saudi Arabia. The findings also help clarify the accreditation operating process, which may be helpful to policymakers and stakeholders in making informed decisions on integrating accreditation standards.

Related collections

Most cited references 34

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

How to Calculate Sample Size for Different Study Designs in Medical Research?

Jaykaran Charan, Tamoghna Biswas (2013)

Calculation of exact sample size is an important part of research design. It is very important to understand that different study design need different method of sample size calculation and one formula cannot be used in all designs. In this short review we tried to educate researcher regarding various method of sample size calculation available for different study designs. In this review sample size calculation for most frequently used study designs are mentioned. For genetic and microbiological studies readers are requested to read other sources.

0 comments Cited 841 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods

Alaa Althubaiti (2016)

As with other fields, medical sciences are subject to different sources of bias. While understanding sources of bias is a key element for drawing valid conclusions, bias in health research continues to be a very sensitive issue that can affect the focus and outcome of investigations. Information bias, otherwise known as misclassification, is one of the most common sources of bias that affects the validity of health research. It originates from the approach that is utilized to obtain or confirm study measurements. This paper seeks to raise awareness of information bias in observational and experimental research study designs as well as to enrich discussions concerning bias problems. Specifying the types of bias can be essential to limit its effects and, the use of adjustment methods might serve to improve clinical evaluation and health care practice.

0 comments Cited 644 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Does accreditation stimulate change? A study of the impact of the accreditation process on Canadian healthcare organizations

Marie-Pascale Pomey, Louise Lemieux-Charles, François Champagne … (2010)

Background One way to improve quality and safety in healthcare organizations (HCOs) is through accreditation. Accreditation is a rigorous external evaluation process that comprises self-assessment against a given set of standards, an on-site survey followed by a report with or without recommendations, and the award or refusal of accreditation status. This study evaluates how the accreditation process helps introduce organizational changes that enhance the quality and safety of care. Methods We used an embedded multiple case study design to explore organizational characteristics and identify changes linked to the accreditation process. We employed a theoretical framework to analyze various elements and for each case, we interviewed top managers, conducted focus groups with staff directly involved in the accreditation process, and analyzed self-assessment reports, accreditation reports and other case-related documents. Results The context in which accreditation took place, including the organizational context, influenced the type of change dynamics that occurred in HCOs. Furthermore, while accreditation itself was not necessarily the element that initiated change, the accreditation process was a highly effective tool for (i) accelerating integration and stimulating a spirit of cooperation in newly merged HCOs; (ii) helping to introduce continuous quality improvement programs to newly accredited or not-yet-accredited organizations; (iii) creating new leadership for quality improvement initiatives; (iv) increasing social capital by giving staff the opportunity to develop relationships; and (v) fostering links between HCOs and other stakeholders. The study also found that HCOs' motivation to introduce accreditation-related changes dwindled over time. Conclusions We conclude that the accreditation process is an effective leitmotiv for the introduction of change but is nonetheless subject to a learning cycle and a learning curve. Institutions invest greatly to conform to the first accreditation visit and reap the greatest benefits in the next three accreditation cycles (3 to 10 years after initial accreditation). After 10 years, however, institutions begin to find accreditation less challenging. To maximize the benefits of the accreditation process, HCOs and accrediting bodies must seek ways to take full advantage of each stage of the accreditation process over time.