Does accreditation of general practice promote patient-reported quality of care? A natural cluster randomised experiment

Enabling Factors for the Successful Implementation of the CBAHI Accreditation Program

Background

Healthcare organizations worldwide tend to implement hospital accreditation programs to improve the quality of care they provide. However, the literature shows inconsistent findings on the impact of such programs on the quality of care due to improper implementation of accreditation programs.

Purpose

This study explored the enabling factors for the effective implementation of the Saudi Central Board for Accreditation of Healthcare Institutions (CBAHI) program in the Ministry of Health (MOH) hospitals in Madinah, Saudi Arabia.

Methods

This qualitative study involved 22 professionals from five CBAHI-accredited MOH hospitals in Madinah, Saudi Arabia. A purposive sampling technique was applied, and data were collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews. A thematic analysis approach was applied to the interview transcripts.

Results

Four themes and 11 subthemes emerged. The emerging themes included the development of human capital, resolving quality management issues, ensuring the availability of resources, and strategizing CBAHI-specific solutions.

Conclusion

The current study fills this knowledge gap by identifying the factors leading to the effective implementation of the CBAHI accreditation program in the MOH hospitals. Only the effective execution of the CBAHI will increase healthcare quality and, as a result, justify the significant resources and efforts invested in these programs. Future research should replicate similar study in other governments or private hospitals.

Accreditation of primary health care centres in the KSA: Lessons from developed and developing countries

Background/Objectives

In 2013, the KSA made Central Board for Accreditation of Healthcare Institutions (CBAHI) accreditation mandatory for all healthcare facilities, including primary health care centres (PHCs) and set a target to have 502 PHCs accredited by 2020. However, there is a real gap in knowledge and research on the impact of CBAHI accreditation on PHCs. This absence of research has been linked to the lack of understanding of the accreditation programme. Therefore, it was recommended by scholars that the KSA could learn from the experience of other countries to improve policy implementation and avoid future complications.

Methods

This study aimed to explore lessons that KSA can draw from developed and developing countries that have implemented accreditation programmes for PHCs. We performed a literature review using a systematic approach to identify articles related to the accreditation of PHCs. The identified articles were examined by applying evaluation criteria in respect of prospective policy transfer.

Results

The research results yielded 22 publications from different countries. There were variations among the countries in the specific information acquired. However, Denmark had the highest number of articles providing detailed information. Regarding their aims, most studies shared the same goal of improving quality and patient safety. Generally, there was limited discussion of policy failure compared with policy success. In addition, most of the countries were in the process of implementing local accreditation. Almost all of the countries that had implemented external programmes were developing countries. In terms of application criteria, most cases made recommendations for the programme or for PHCs.

Conclusion

Analysis indicated that because of the differences in information between countries and settings, there is no ideal country-based experience from which the KSA can transfer lessons. Lessons from outside the KSA would need careful consideration when adopting them in the local context of the Kingdom.

What GPs do to meet accreditation standards - implementation activities and perceived improvements attributed to general practice accreditation

BACKGROUND

Healthcare accreditation is a widely implemented tool used to enhance the quality of care and underpin quality control. However, research is sparse on the accreditation process in general practice. The aim of this study was to explore how team-based implementation activities preceding accreditation were associated with self-perceived improvements in emergency preparedness (preparedness for urgent disease and cardiac arrest) and handling of prescription renewals in Danish general practice.

METHODS

GPs (general practitioners) completed a questionnaire exploring practice-team activities conducted to implement two specific accreditation standards and the related improvements as perceived by the GPs. The following implementation activities were selected, inspired by Normalization Process Theory: Common understanding (obtaining a common understanding of the purpose of implementing changes according to the accreditation standard), key person (assigning a key person responsible for working with the standard), and easy integration (finding it easy to integrate changes into existing working procedures). Data were analysed with logistic regression, and adjusted analyses included practice type, number of GP partners, number of staff, training site for junior GPs and administrative region.

RESULTS

The total response rate was 74% (n = 920). Around 80% of the clinics reported having conducted team-based implementation activities. Almost half of the clinics (48%) reported perceived improvements in the emergency preparedness, and 30% reported perceived improvements in the handling of prescription renewals. Obtaining a common understanding was found to have a strong, significant association with perceived improvements in the emergency preparedness (OR = 5.07 (3.06-8.40)) and handling of prescription renewals (OR = 3.66 (2.07-6.46)). Easy integration of changes was also significantly associated with improvements in both emergency preparedness (OR = 1.88 (1.24-2.85)) and handling of prescription renewals (OR = 2.34 (1.44-3.79)), whereas assigning a key person was only significantly associated with improved emergency preparedness (OR = 1.95 (1.19-3.19)).

CONCLUSION

Clinical quality initiatives that involve collaboration within a practice team are more likely to cause improvements if specific team-based implementation activities are conducted. It is particularly important to facilitate a common understanding of the purpose of the initiative. Therefore, external support for quality initiatives aiming at the practice level in general practice should facilitate such team-based activities.

Prescribing antibiotics: Factors driving decision-making in general practice. A discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial resistance is a threat to human health. We need to strive for a rational use of antibiotics to reduce the selection of resistant bacteria. Most antibiotics are prescribed in general practice, but little is known about factors influencing general practitioners' (GPs) decision-making when prescribing antibiotics.

AIM

To 1) assess the importance of factors that influence decisions by GPs to prescribe antibiotics for acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs) and 2) identify segments of GPs influenced differently when deciding to prescribe antibiotics.

METHODS

A questionnaire survey including a discrete choice experiment was conducted. Danish GPs were asked to indicate whether they would prescribe antibiotics in six hypothetical choice sets with six variables: whether the GP is behind schedule, patient's temperature, patient's general condition, lung auscultation findings, C-reactive protein (CRP) level, and whether the patient expects antibiotics. Error component and latent class models were estimated and the probabilities of prescribing in different scenarios were calculated.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was distributed to every Danish GP (n = 3,336); 1,152 (35%) responded. Results showed that GPs were influenced by (in prioritised order): CRP level (Relative importance (RI) 0.54), patient's general condition (RI 0.20), crackles at auscultation (RI 0.15), and fever (RI 0.10). Being behind schedule and patient expectations had no significant impact on antibiotic prescription at the aggregate level. The latent class analysis identified five classes of GPs: generalists, CRP-guided, general condition-guided, reluctant prescribers, and stethoscopy-guided. For all classes, CRP was the most important driver, while GPs were heterogeneously affected by other drivers.

CONCLUSION

The most important factor affecting Danish GPs' decision to prescribe antibiotics at the aggregate level, in subgroups of GPs, and across latent classes was the CRP value. Hence, the use of CRP testing is an important factor to consider in order to promote rational antibiotic use in the battle against antimicrobial resistance.