David Greenfield1, Jeffrey Braithwaite. 1. Centre for Clinical Governance Research in Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia. d.greenfield@unsw.edu.au
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify and analyze research into accreditation and accreditation processes. DATA SOURCES: 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. STUDY SELECTION: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: The health care accreditation industry appears to be purposefully moving towards constructing the evidence to ground our understanding of accreditation.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify and analyze research into accreditation and accreditation processes. DATA SOURCES: 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. STUDY SELECTION: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: The health care accreditation industry appears to be purposefully moving towards constructing the evidence to ground our understanding of accreditation.
Authors: David Greenfield; Reece Hinchcliff; Margaret Banks; Virginia Mumford; Anne Hogden; Deborah Debono; Marjorie Pawsey; Johanna Westbrook; Jeffrey Braithwaite Journal: Health Expect Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Helen E Lester; Tina Eriksson; Rob Dijkstra; Katrin Martinson; Tomasz Tomasik; Nigel Sparrow Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Peter P Howley; Stephen J Hancock; Robert W Gibberd; Sheuwen Chuang; Frank A Tuyl Journal: World J Clin Cases Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 1.337