Literature DB >> 26044988

A hybrid health service accreditation program model incorporating mandated standards and continuous improvement: interview study of multiple stakeholders in Australian health care.

David Greenfield1, Reece Hinchcliff1, Anne Hogden1, Virginia Mumford1, Deborah Debono1, Marjorie Pawsey1, Johanna Westbrook2, Jeffrey Braithwaite1.   

Abstract

The study aim was to investigate the understandings and concerns of stakeholders regarding the evolution of health service accreditation programs in Australia. Stakeholder representatives from programs in the primary, acute and aged care sectors participated in semi-structured interviews. Across 2011-12 there were 47 group and individual interviews involving 258 participants. Interviews lasted, on average, 1 h, and were digitally recorded and transcribed. Transcriptions were analysed using textual referencing software. Four significant issues were considered to have directed the evolution of accreditation programs: altering underlying program philosophies; shifting of program content focus and details; different surveying expectations and experiences and the influence of external contextual factors upon accreditation programs. Three accreditation program models were noted by participants: regulatory compliance; continuous quality improvement and a hybrid model, incorporating elements of these two. Respondents noted the compatibility or incommensurability of the first two models. Participation in a program was reportedly experienced as ranging on a survey continuum from "malicious compliance" to "performance audits" to "quality improvement journeys". Wider contextual factors, in particular, political and community expectations, and associated media reporting, were considered significant influences on the operation and evolution of programs. A hybrid accreditation model was noted to have evolved. The hybrid model promotes minimum standards and continuous quality improvement, through examining the structure and processes of organisations and the outcomes of care. The hybrid model appears to be directing organisational and professional attention to enhance their safety cultures.
Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  accreditation; quality and safety; regulation; research

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26044988     DOI: 10.1002/hpm.2301

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Health Plann Manage        ISSN: 0749-6753


  6 in total

1.  Comparing the old to the new: A comparison of similarities and differences of the accreditation standards of the chiropractic council on education-international from 2010 to 2016.

Authors:  Stanley I Innes; Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde; Bruce F Walker
Journal:  Chiropr Man Therap       Date:  2018-08-15

2.  Recognising and responding to deteriorating patients: what difference do national standards make?

Authors:  Matthew H Anstey; Alice Bhasale; Nicola J Dunbar; Heather Buchan
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-09-05       Impact factor: 2.655

3.  Understanding accreditation standards in general practice - a qualitative study.

Authors:  Tina Drud Due; Thorkil Thorsen; Marius Brostrøm Kousgaard
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2019-01-31       Impact factor: 2.497

4.  A perspective on Chiropractic Councils on Education accreditation standards and processes from the inside: a narrative description of expert opinion: Part 1: Themes.

Authors:  Stanley I Innes; Vicki Cope; Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde; Bruce F Walker
Journal:  Chiropr Man Therap       Date:  2019-09-12

5.  Novel team-based approach to quality improvement effectively engages staff and reduces adverse events in healthcare settings.

Authors:  Annie Gabrielle Curtin; Vitas Anderson; Fran Brockhus; Donna Ruth Cohen
Journal:  BMJ Open Qual       Date:  2020-04

6.  Mediators of change in healthcare organisations subject to external assessment: a systematic review with narrative synthesis.

Authors:  Einar Hovlid; Geir Sverre Braut; Einar Hannisdal; Kieran Walshe; Oddbjørn Bukve; Signe Flottorp; Per Stensland; Jan C Frich
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-08-30       Impact factor: 2.692

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.