Deborah Debono1, David Greenfield2, Luke Testa3, Virginia Mumford4, Anne Hogden5, Marjorie Pawsey6, Johanna Westbrook7, Jeffrey Braithwaite8. 1. Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: deborah.debono@uts.edu.au. 2. Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: david.greenfield@utas.edu.au. 3. Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: luke.testa@mq.edu.au. 4. Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: virgina.mumford@mq.edu.au. 5. Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: anne.hogden@mq.edu.au. 6. Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: marjorie.pawsey@tpg.com.au. 7. Centre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: johanna.westbrook@mq.edu.au. 8. Centre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: jeffrey.braithwaite@mq.edu.au.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine general practice accreditation stakeholders' perspectives and experiences to identify program strengths and areas for improvements. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Individual (n=2) and group (n=9) interviews were conducted between September 2011-March 2012 with 52 stakeholders involved in accreditation in Australian general practices. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Member checking activities in April 2016 assessed the credibility and currency of the findings in light of current reforms. RESULTS: Overall, participants endorsed the accreditation program but identified several areas of concern. Noted strengths of the program included: program ownership, peer review and collaborative learning; access to Practice Incentives Program payments; and, improvements in safety and quality. Noted limitations in these and other aspects of the program offer potential for improvement: evidence for the impact of accreditation; resource demands; clearer outcome measures; and, specific experiences of accreditation. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of accreditation as a strategy to improve safety and quality was shaped by the attitudes and experience of stakeholders. Strengths and weaknesses in the accreditation program influence, and are influenced by, stakeholder engagement and disengagement. After several accreditation cycles, the sector has the opportunity to reflect on, review and improve the process. This will be important if the continued or extended engagement of practices is to be realised to assure the continuation and effectiveness of the accreditation program.
OBJECTIVE: To examine general practice accreditation stakeholders' perspectives and experiences to identify program strengths and areas for improvements. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Individual (n=2) and group (n=9) interviews were conducted between September 2011-March 2012 with 52 stakeholders involved in accreditation in Australian general practices. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Member checking activities in April 2016 assessed the credibility and currency of the findings in light of current reforms. RESULTS: Overall, participants endorsed the accreditation program but identified several areas of concern. Noted strengths of the program included: program ownership, peer review and collaborative learning; access to Practice Incentives Program payments; and, improvements in safety and quality. Noted limitations in these and other aspects of the program offer potential for improvement: evidence for the impact of accreditation; resource demands; clearer outcome measures; and, specific experiences of accreditation. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of accreditation as a strategy to improve safety and quality was shaped by the attitudes and experience of stakeholders. Strengths and weaknesses in the accreditation program influence, and are influenced by, stakeholder engagement and disengagement. After several accreditation cycles, the sector has the opportunity to reflect on, review and improve the process. This will be important if the continued or extended engagement of practices is to be realised to assure the continuation and effectiveness of the accreditation program.