36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Stakeholder perspectives on implementing accreditation programs: a qualitative study of enabling factors

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Accreditation programs are complex, system-wide quality and safety interventions. Despite their international popularity, evidence of their effectiveness is weak and contradictory. This may be due to variable implementation in different contexts. However, there is limited research that informs implementation strategies. We aimed to advance knowledge in this area by identifying factors that enable effective implementation of accreditation programs across different healthcare settings.

          Methods

          We conducted 39 focus groups and eight interviews between 2011 and 2012, involving 258 diverse healthcare stakeholders from every Australian State and Territory. Interviews were semi-structured and focused on the aims, implementation and consequences of three prominent accreditation programs in the aged, primary and acute care sectors. Data were thematically analysed to distil and categorise facilitators of effective implementation.

          Results

          Four factors were identified as critical enablers of effective implementation: the accreditation program is collaborative, valid and uses relevant standards; accreditation is favourably received by health professionals; healthcare organisations are capable of embracing accreditation; and accreditation is appropriately aligned with other regulatory initiatives and supported by relevant incentives.

          Conclusions

          Strategic implementation of accreditation programs should target the four factors emerging from this study, which may increase the likelihood of accreditation being implemented successfully.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Health sector accreditation research: a systematic review.

          The purpose of this study was to identify and analyze research into accreditation and accreditation processes. A multi-method, systematic review of the accreditation literature was conducted from March to May 2007. The search identified articles researching accreditation. Discussion or commentary pieces were excluded. From the initial identification of over 3000 abstracts, 66 studies that met the search criteria by empirically examining accreditation were selected. DATA EXTRACTION AND RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: The 66 studies were retrieved and analyzed. The results, examining the impact or effectiveness of accreditation, were classified into 10 categories: professions' attitudes to accreditation, promote change, organizational impact, financial impact, quality measures, program assessment, consumer views or patient satisfaction, public disclosure, professional development and surveyor issues. The analysis reveals a complex picture. In two categories consistent findings were recorded: promote change and professional development. Inconsistent findings were identified in five categories: professions' attitudes to accreditation, organizational impact, financial impact, quality measures and program assessment. The remaining three categories-consumer views or patient satisfaction, public disclosure and surveyor issues-did not have sufficient studies to draw any conclusion. The search identified a number of national health care accreditation organizations engaged in research activities. The health care accreditation industry appears to be purposefully moving towards constructing the evidence to ground our understanding of accreditation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            How Can We Support the Use of Systematic Reviews in Policymaking?

            John Lavis (2009)
            John Lavis discusses how health policymakers and their stakeholders need research evidence, and the best ways evidence can be synthesized and packaged to optimize its use.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Patient safety research: an overview of the global evidence.

              , D Bates, A Jha (2010)
              Unsafe medical care may cause substantial morbidity and mortality globally, despite imprecise estimates of the magnitude of the problem. To better understand the extent and nature of the problem of unsafe care, the WHO World Alliance for Patient Safety commissioned an overview of the world's literature on patient safety research. Major patient safety topics were identified through a consultative and investigative process and were categorised into the framework of structure, process and outcomes of unsafe care. Lead experts examined current evidence and identified major knowledge gaps relating to topics in developing, transitional and developed nations. The report was reviewed by internal and external experts and underwent improvements based on the feedback. Twenty-three major patient safety topics were examined. Much of the evidence of the outcomes of unsafe care is from developed nations, where prevalence studies demonstrate that between 3% and 16% of hospitalised patients suffer harm from medical care. Data from transitional and developing countries also suggest substantial harm from medical care. However, considerable gaps in knowledge about the structural and process factors that underlie unsafe care globally make solutions difficult to identify, especially in resource-poor settings. Harm from medical care appears to pose a substantial burden to the world's population. However, much of the evidence base comes from developed nations. Understanding the scope of and solutions for unsafe care for the rest of the world is a critical component of delivering safe, effective care to all of the world's citizens.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central
                1472-6963
                2013
                24 October 2013
                : 13
                : 437
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Clinical Governance Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia
                [2 ]Centre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia
                Article
                1472-6963-13-437
                10.1186/1472-6963-13-437
                4015646
                24156525
                ecbe657e-1077-4a37-96d2-02c61192d222
                Copyright © 2013 Hinchcliff et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 19 March 2013
                : 21 October 2013
                Categories
                Research Article

                Health & Social care
                implementation research,accreditation,quality improvement,quality and safety,health services research,knowledge translation,organisational context,qualitative research,interviews,focus groups

                Comments

                Comment on this article