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
Local health department directors’ intent on getting their organizations ready for
accreditation must embrace the blurring of leader/follower lines and create an accreditation
readiness team fueled not by traditional leader or follower roles but by teamship.
Emerging public health standards, performance assessment tools, and accreditation models hold significant promise for defining and standardizing public health practice, yet the lack of empirical research on their relationship to outcomes represents a serious barrier to adoption. Given the growing interest and momentum related to public health agency assessment and accreditation efforts, there is increasing need for evidence that performance standards and associated accreditation programs are effective means for moving public health systems toward the ultimate goal of population and community health improvement. This article provides an overview of accreditation in health and other industries, and its relationship to outcomes. We examine lessons that might have meaningful public health translations, as well as influences in and on public health that pose challenges for research and evaluation in this area. Finally, we propose a logic model framework to help depict the ways in which we can begin to explore the impact accreditation has on various levels of outcomes. This logic model is intended to guide the development of measures and to serve as a tool to help convey the breadth and depth of research needed to link accreditation to health outcomes.
"The fastest way to succeed," IBM's Thomas Watson, Sr., once said, "is to double your failure rate." In recent years, more and more executives have embraced Watson's point of view, coming to understand what innovators have always known: Failure is a prerequisite to invention. But while companies may grasp the value of making mistakes at the level of corporate practices, they have a harder time accepting the idea at the personal level. People are afraid to fail, and corporate culture reinforces that fear. In this article, psychologist and former Harvard Business School professor Richard Farson and coauthor Ralph Keyes discuss how companies can reduce the fear of miscues. What's crucial is the presence of failure-tolerant leaders--executives who, through their words and actions, help employees overcome their anxieties about making mistakes and, in the process, create a culture of intelligent risk-taking that leads to sustained innovation. Such leaders don't just accept productive failure, they promote it. Drawing from their research in business, politics, sports, and science, the authors identify common practices among failure-tolerant leaders. These leaders break down the social and bureaucratic barriers that separate them from their followers. They engage at a personal level with the people they lead. They avoid giving either praise or criticism, preferring to take a nonjudgmental, analytical posture as they interact with staff. They openly admit their own mistakes rather than trying to cover them up or shifting the blame. And they try to root out the destructive competitiveness built into most organizations. Above all else, failure-tolerant leaders push people to see beyond traditional definitions of success and failure. They know that as long as a person views failure as the opposite of success, rather than its complement, he or she will never be able to take the risks necessary for innovation.
A recently released report of the Exploring Accreditation Project affirmatively answered the questions regarding the desirability and feasibility of establishing a national voluntary public health accreditation program. The report's recommendations were made after 10 months of inquiry from public health experts, elected officials, the general public health workforce, academicians, and other interested parties, more than 650 public health professionals in all. Recommendations regarding how such a program might be implemented insofar as its governance, principles for standards development, financing and incentives, and evaluation were included. The report provides a blueprint for establishing a national voluntary public health accreditation program. This article describes key aspects of the Steering Committee recommendations, with limited linkage to implementation strategies where relevant, in the four areas in which the project was designed. Details are provided in the final reports of the Steering Committee (www.exploringaccreditation.org) and in other articles in this issue.
[1]1Department of Health Management and Policy, College of Public Health, University of
Kentucky , Lexington, KY, USA
Author notes
Edited by: Erik L. Carlton, The University of Memphis, USA
Reviewed by: Christopher G. Atchison, University of Iowa, USA; Simone Rauscher Singh,
University of Michigan, USA; Kate E. Beatty, East Tennessee State University, USA
*Correspondence: Angela L. Carman, Department of Health Management and Policy, College
of Public Health, University of Kentucky, 111 Washington Avenue, Suite 105C, Lexington,
KY 40536-003, USA e-mail:
angela.carman@
123456uky.edu
This article was submitted to Public Health Education and Promotion, a section of
the journal Frontiers in Public Health.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums
is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the
original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic
practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply
with these terms.
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.