Evaluating the impact of accreditation and external peer review

Compliance of Interventional Radiologists With Interventional Oncology Accreditation Standards

PURPOSE

We aimed to evaluate interventional radiologists' compliance with patient care and the quality management process of cancer patients using a national survey.

METHODS

An electronic survey was designed with questions derived from the core criteria of the International Accreditation System for Interventional Oncology (IASIOS), with the approval of the IASIOS council. Among the interventional radiologists contacted by e-mail through the national association, 34 responded to the questionnaire. The agreement of the participants with the core requirements was evaluated in five questions consisting of 34 articles using the 5-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

Regarding the years of experience in interventional radiology (IR), the mean scale for the less than five-year group was 118.4, while that for the group with more than 15 years was 145.17 (p = 0.030). The mean scale of the five- to 15-year-old group was 121.75, versus that of more than 15 years, which was 145.17 (p = 0.028). Thus, significant differences arose between 15 years and five to 15 years versus >15 years groups; later groups were more likely to comply. There was also a statistical difference between the groups formed according to the ratio of oncological interventions (<25% vs. 25%-50%) in the daily workload (p = 0.010).

CONCLUSION

Increased experience in IR and more relay on oncological interventions appear to augment compliance with the IASIOS criteria. We believe that interventional radiologists who have distinct territorial praxis could benefit from such a framework with improved self-awareness.

The impact of hospital accreditation on the quality of healthcare: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Accreditation is viewed as a reputable tool to evaluate and enhance the quality of health care. However, its effect on performance and outcomes remains unclear. This review aimed to identify and analyze the evidence on the impact of hospital accreditation.

METHODS

We systematically searched electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, MEDLINE (OvidSP), CDSR, CENTRAL, ScienceDirect, SSCI, RSCI, SciELO, and KCI) and other sources using relevant subject headings. We included peer-reviewed quantitative studies published over the last two decades, irrespective of its design or language. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, two reviewers independently screened initially identified articles, reviewed the full-text of potentially relevant studies, extracted necessary data, and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using a validated tool. The accreditation effects were synthesized and categorized thematically into six impact themes.

RESULTS

We screened a total of 17,830 studies, of which 76 empirical studies that examined the impact of accreditation met our inclusion criteria. These studies were methodologically heterogeneous. Apart from the effect of accreditation on healthcare workers and particularly on job stress, our results indicate a consistent positive effect of hospital accreditation on safety culture, process-related performance measures, efficiency, and the patient length of stay, whereas employee satisfaction, patient satisfaction and experience, and 30-day hospital readmission rate were found to be unrelated to accreditation. Paradoxical results regarding the impact of accreditation on mortality rate and healthcare-associated infections hampered drawing firm conclusions on these outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

There is reasonable evidence to support the notion that compliance with accreditation standards has multiple plausible benefits in improving the performance in the hospital setting. Despite inconclusive evidence on causality, introducing hospital accreditation schemes stimulates performance improvement and patient safety. Efforts to incentivize and modernize accreditation are recommended to move towards institutionalization and sustaining the performance gains. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020167863.

Hospital accreditation impact on healthcare quality dimensions: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To systematically review the impact of hospital accreditation on healthcare quality indicators, as classified into seven healthcare quality dimensions.

DATA SOURCE

We searched eight databases in June 2020: EBSCO, PubMed, Web of Science, Emerald, ProQuest, Science Direct, Scopus and Virtual Health Library. Search terms were conceptualized into three groups: hospitals, accreditation and terms relating to healthcare quality. The eligibility criteria included academic articles that applied quantitative methods to examine the impact of hospital accreditation on healthcare quality indicators.

STUDY SELECTION

We applied the PICO framework to select the articles according to the following criteria: Population-all types of hospitals; Intervention-hospital accreditation; Comparison-quantitative method applied to compare accredited vs. nonaccredited hospitals, or hospitals before vs. after accreditation; Outcomes-regarding the seven healthcare quality dimensions. After a critical appraisal of the 943 citations initially retrieved, 36 studies were included in this review.

RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS

Overall results suggest that accreditation may have a positive impact on efficiency, safety, effectiveness, timeliness and patient-centeredness. In turn, only one study analyzes the impact on access, and no study has investigated the impact on equity dimension yet.

CONCLUSION

Mainly due to the methodological shortcomings, the positive impact of accreditation on healthcare dimensions should be interpreted with caution. This study provides an up-to-date overview of the main themes examined in the literature, highlighting critical knowledge-gaps and methodological flaws. The findings may provide value to healthcare stakeholders in terms of improving their ability to assess the relevance of accreditation processes.

S. Impact of accreditation on performance of healthcare organizations

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to review the accreditation research in specific to its effect on the performance of healthcare organizations.

Design/methodology/approach

A comprehensive search and analysis of literature on the effect of healthcare accreditation were conducted between June 2017 and May 2018. The study identified 62 empirical research studies that examined the effect of healthcare accreditation programmes. Study particulars such as year of publication, objectives, focus of the study, research settings and key findings were recorded. A content analysis was performed to identify the frequency of the main themes in the literature. Knowledge gaps needing further examination were identified.

Findings

Majority of the accreditation impact studies were carried out in the developed nations (n = 49). The thematic categories, that is the impact on “patient safety and healthcare quality” (n = 26), “healthcare professionals’ views” (n = 28) and “clinical process and outcomes” (n = 17) were addressed more times. Whereas the other two thematic categories “organizational performance” and “consumers’ views or satisfaction,” each was examined less than 10 instances. This review reveals mixed views on effect of healthcare accreditation. The varied quality of studies and the availability of a few studies on consumers’ perception of accreditation effectiveness were the important limiting factors of this review.

Originality/value

The findings are valuable to healthcare managers and hospital administrators in accreditation decisions, whereas findings are of value to researchers and academicians in terms of gaps identified for future research studies pertaining to the impact of healthcare accreditation. Future studies need to consider holistic theoretical frameworks for assessing the effect of accreditation on performance of healthcare organizations to achieve precise results.

Healthcare accreditation as trigger of organisational change: The view of professionals

BACKGROUND

Healthcare accreditation seeks to promote the organisational change in healthcare organisations from an approach that values the level of progress achieved through a validated reference framework. The aim of this paper is to analyse the role played by accreditation through the experience perceived by health professionals during the process of self-assessment and external evaluation, taking into account three dimensions of analysis: focus on the patient, internal organisation and leadership, and impact on the clinical aspects of healthcare.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Design: Semi-structured interviews with key informants from clinical management units (CMU) within the Andalusian Health System (Spain).

PARTICIPANTS

The key informants in each CMU were the clinical leader, the head of nursing and two health professionals (doctors and nurses). A qualitative research protocol was employed to conduct the semi-structured interviews (n=52 interviews) with physicians and nurses, in order to analyse their experience with the accreditation process.

RESULTS

The analysis identified four main outcomes related to the accreditation process perceived by professionals: (1) A benchmarking conceptualisation of the process; (2) Improvements in patient-centred care, quality of clinical records, and organisational culture of the units; (3) Improvement of patient safety culture; (4) As negative outcomes, a slight perception of bureaucratisation and standardisation of the clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The described initiative of accreditation process in Andalusia (Spain) is widely perceived as positive by health professionals since it fosters the organisational change, although it also has a slightly negative bureaucratisation effect on clinical practice.

Impact of a peer-review network on the quality of inpatient low secure mental health services: cluster randomised control trial

BACKGROUND

Peer-review networks aim to help services to improve the quality of care they provide, however, there is very little evidence about their impact. We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial of a peer-review quality network for low-secure mental health services to examine the impact of network membership on the process and outcomes of care over a 12 month period.

METHODS

Thirty-eight low secure units were randomly allocated to either the active intervention (participation in the network n = 18) or the control arm (delayed participation in the network n = 20). A total of 75 wards were assessed at baseline and 8 wards dropped out the study before the data collection at 12 month follow up. The primary outcome measure was the quality of the physical environment and facilities of the services. The secondary outcomes included: safety of the ward, patient mental wellbeing and satisfaction with care, staff burnout, training and supervision. We hypothesised that, relative to control wards, the quality of the physical environment and facilities would be higher on wards in the active arm of the trial 12 months after randomization.

RESULTS

The difference in the primary outcome between the groups was not statistically significant (4.1; 95% CI [- 0.2, 8.3] p = 0.06). The median number of untoward incidents rose in control services and remained the same at the member of the network (Difference between members and non-members = 0.55; 95% IC [0.29, 1.07] p = 0.08). At follow up, a higher proportion of staff in the active arm of the trial indicated that they felt safe on the ward relative to those in the control services (p = 0.04), despite reporting more physical assaults (p = 0.04). Staff working in services in the active arm of the trial reported higher levels of burnout relative to those in the control group. No difference was seen in patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find evidence that participation in a peer-review network led to marked changes in the quality of the physical environment of low secure mental health services at 12 months. Future research should explore the impact of accreditation schemes and examine longer term outcomes of participation in such networks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN79614916 . Retrospectively registered 28 March 2014.