| Literature DB >> 35805791 |
Shahenaz Najjar1, Sali Hafez2, Aisha Al Basuoni3, Hassan Abu Obaid4,5,6, Ibrahim Mughnnamin1,7, Hiba Falana1,8, Haya Sultan1,8, Yousef Aljeesh9, Mohammed Alkhaldi10,11,12,13,14,15,16.
Abstract
The Health Workforce Accreditation and Regulation (HWAR) is a key function of the health system and is the subject of increasing global attention. This study provides an assessment of the factors affecting the Palestinian HWAR system, identifies existing gaps and offers actionable improvement solutions. Data were collected during October and November 2019 in twenty-two semi-structured in-depth interviews conducted with experts, academics, leaders, and policymakers purposely selected from government, academia, and non-governmental organizations. The overall perceptions towards HWAR were inconsistent. The absence of a consolidated HWAR system has led to a lack of communication between actors. Environmental factors also affect HWAR in Palestine. The study highlighted the consensus on addressing further development of HWAR and the subsequent advantages of this enhancement. The current HWAR practices were found to be based on personal initiatives rather than on a systematic evidence-based approach. The need to strengthen law enforcement was raised by numerous participants. Additional challenges were identified, including the lack of knowledge exchange and salary adjustments. HWAR in Palestine needs to be strengthened on the national, institutional, and individual levels through clear and standardized operating processes. All relevant stakeholders should work together through an integrated national accreditation and regulation system.Entities:
Keywords: Palestine; accreditation and regulations; health system; health workforce
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35805791 PMCID: PMC9265623 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19138131
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Participant characteristics.
| Variables | ||
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 6 (27.3%) |
| Male | 16 (72.7%) | |
| Age | Range (Mean, SD *) | 38 to 70 years (M = 50.2, SD = 9.9) |
| Years of experience | Range (Mean, SD) | 6 to 40 years (M = 22.5, SD = 9.8) |
| Highest diploma | Bachelor | 5 (22.7%) |
| Master | 6 (27.3%) | |
| PhD | 11 (50.0%) | |
| Sector | Government | 13 (59.1%) |
| Universities | 6 (27.3%) | |
| NGOs | 3 (13.6%) | |
* SD = Standard deviation.
Perceptions of disadvantages and advantages of the HWAR system and process.
| Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|
|
| |
| ↑ no. of qualified personnel, positions for qualified personnel, and trusted professionals | Poor professional standards and malpractice |
|
| |
| Better safety and quality of care, well-staffed care, improved accessible and affordable care, avoided errors, well-designed and distributed care, reduced medical errors. | Medical errors, unsafe healthcare, poor quality, care inaccessibility, interrupted and disorganized care. |
|
| |
| ↑ Provider and patient satisfaction, observance of patients’ rights, patient safety | Dissatisfaction among clients and care recipients |
|
| |
| Regulated practices, ↓ unemployment, legal responsibility, accountability, individual and institutional protection, reduced referrals abroad, appropriate and healthy work environment, regulated and overseen professions, limits on fraud and forgery, optimal resource allocation and cost-effectiveness, regulated and distributed human resources, provides indicators for assessment of quality of care. | Unorganized regulations and laws, unsystematic practices, interrupted or unprofessional environment in the workplace |
Figure 1HWAR challenges and gaps.
Figure 2HWAR recommendations on individual, institutional and national levels.