Hospital Accreditation: A Review of Evidence, Regulatory Compliance, and Healthcare Outcome Measures

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Hospitals are increasingly under pressure to provide safe and high-quality care at an affordable cost. In response to this challenge, many have adopted accreditation as an internationally recognized tool to facilitate improvements in healthcare quality and patient safety. The objectives of the study were to (a) evaluate the impact of international hospital accreditation in Dubai and (b) inform policy decision-making. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We adopted a literature review, analysis of violation data, and clinical performance measures. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The literature review suggests insufficient evidence to link accreditation to healthcare outcomes. We report a gradual increase in hospital violations and an improvement of clinical outcomes over three years, however the improvement in clinical outcome measures were not statistically significant. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> There is limited evidence to determine the impact of international hospital accreditation. Performance measures for accreditation are needed to validate the contribution accreditation may have on reducing non-compliance and improving clinical performance measures. Further research is needed to explore how well accreditation models fit within the Donabedian framework for healthcare quality.

A Mixed-Methods Study to Explore the Impact of Hospital Accreditation

There are several hospital accreditors globally but there is limited understanding of how accreditation impacts on hospital performance and the health system objectives. The objective of the study were to explore the impact of hospital accreditation and inform policy decision-making. We adopted a mixed-methods approach to include an online survey and 3 focus groups. We report 27 of 36 private hospitals who responded to the survey. Key reasons for accreditation were to improve quality (n = 23), implement evidence-based practice (n = 17), continuity of accreditation (n = 15), and popularity (n = 11). Reported improvements include quality of care (27), patient care (26), organizational processes (21), and patient satisfaction (19) among others. Average stakeholder satisfaction rate was 74%. Participants from the 3 focus group discussions felt that staff hours and stress levels were high during the accreditation process, and some standards were useful while others were deemed non-essential. There was support for a local accreditation body with an emphasis on best practice. The findings from the study suggest accreditation to have an impact on structure and process measures, but the gains in key areas were short-lived. There is a need to strengthen governance and develop performance measures to evidence outcome improvement, assure alignment with regulation and the health system objectives.