34
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Strengthening organizational performance through accreditation research-a framework for twelve interrelated studies: the ACCREDIT project study protocol

      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

          Service accreditation is a structured process of recognising and promoting performance and adherence to standards. Typically, accreditation agencies either receive standards from an authorized body or develop new and upgrade existing standards through research and expert views. They then apply standards, criteria and performance indicators, testing their effects, and monitoring compliance with them. The accreditation process has been widely adopted. The international investments in accreditation are considerable. However, reliable evidence of its efficiency or effectiveness in achieving organizational improvements is sparse and the value of accreditation in cost-benefit terms has yet to be demonstrated. Although some evidence suggests that accreditation promotes the improvement and standardization of care, there have been calls to strengthen its research base.

          In response, the ACCREDIT ( Accreditation Collaborative for the Conduct of Research, Evaluation and Designated Investigations through Teamwork) project has been established to evaluate the effectiveness of Australian accreditation in achieving its goals. ACCREDIT is a partnership of key researchers, policymakers and agencies.

          Findings

          We present the framework for our studies in accreditation. Four specific aims of the ACCREDIT project, which will direct our findings, are to: (i) evaluate current accreditation processes; (ii) analyse the costs and benefits of accreditation; (iii) improve future accreditation via evidence; and (iv) develop and apply new standards of consumer involvement in accreditation. These will be addressed through 12 interrelated studies designed to examine specific issues identified as a high priority. Novel techniques, a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods, and randomized designs relevant for health-care research have been developed. These methods allow us to circumvent the fragmented and incommensurate findings that can be generated in small-scale, project-based studies. The overall approach for our research is a multi-level, multi-study design.

          Discussion

          The ACCREDIT project will examine the utility, reliability, relevance and cost effectiveness of differing forms of accreditation, focused on general practice, aged care and acute care settings in Australia. Empirically, there are potential research gains to be made by understanding accreditation and extending existing knowledge; theoretically, this design will facilitate a systems view of accreditation of benefit to the partnership, international research communities, and future accreditation designers.

          "Accreditation of health-care organisations is a multimillion dollar industry which shapes care in many countries. Recent reviews of research show little evidence that accreditation increases safety or improves quality. It's time we knew about the cost and value of accreditation and about its future direction." [Professor John Øvretveit, Karolinska Institute, Sweden, 7 October 2009]

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • 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: not found

            Health service accreditation as a predictor of clinical and organisational performance: a blinded, random, stratified study.

            Despite the widespread use of accreditation in many countries, and prevailing beliefs that accreditation is associated with variables contributing to clinical care and organisational outcomes, little systematic research has been conducted to examine its validity as a predictor of healthcare performance. To determine whether accreditation performance is associated with self-reported clinical performance and independent ratings of four aspects of organisational performance. Independent blinded assessment of these variables in a random, stratified sample of health service organisations. Acute care: large, medium and small health-service organisations in Australia. Study participants Nineteen health service organisations employing 16 448 staff treating 321 289 inpatients and 1 971 087 non-inpatient services annually, representing approximately 5% of the Australian acute care health system. Correlations of accreditation performance with organisational culture, organisational climate, consumer involvement, leadership and clinical performance. Results Accreditation performance was significantly positively correlated with organisational culture (rho=0.618, p=0.005) and leadership (rho=0.616, p=0.005). There was a trend between accreditation and clinical performance (rho=0.450, p=0.080). Accreditation was unrelated to organisational climate (rho=0.378, p=0.110) and consumer involvement (rho=0.215, p=0.377). Accreditation results predict leadership behaviours and cultural characteristics of healthcare organisations but not organisational climate or consumer participation, and a positive trend between accreditation and clinical performance is noted.
              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

              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.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Res Notes
                BMC Research Notes
                BioMed Central
                1756-0500
                2011
                9 October 2011
                : 4
                : 390
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW 2052, Australia
                [2 ]Australian Council on Healthcare Standards, 5 Macarthur Street, Ultimo NSW 2007, Australia
                [3 ]Quality in Practice/Australian General Practice Accreditation Limited, PO Box 2058, Milton QLD 4064, Australia
                [4 ]Aged Care Accreditation Agency Limited, PO Box 773, Parramatta NSW 2124, Australia
                [5 ]Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, GPO Box 5480, Sydney NSW 2001, Australia
                [6 ]Clinical Excellence Commission, GPO Box 1614, Sydney, NSW 2001, Australia
                [7 ]University of Technology, 15 Broadway, Ultimo NSW 2007, Australia
                [8 ]Karolinska Institute, Fakturor, Box 23 109, SE-104 35 Stockholm, Sweden
                [9 ]University of Southampton, University Road, Southampton SO17 1BJ UK
                [10 ]Avedis Donabedian University Institute, Autonomous University of Barcelona, CIBER Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Spain
                [11 ]European Society for Quality in Healthcare, St Camillus Hospital, Shelbourne Road, Limerick, Ireland
                Article
                1756-0500-4-390
                10.1186/1756-0500-4-390
                3199265
                21981910
                8b4f7025-2711-430d-b767-8c9f5c302872
                Copyright ©2011 Braithwaite 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
                : 22 February 2011
                : 9 October 2011
                Categories
                Project Note

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article