A mechanism for revising accreditation standards: a study of the process, resources required and evaluation outcomes

BMC Health Services Research

Jeffrey Braithwaite³  Johanna Westbrook¹  Reece Hinchcliff³  Anne Hogden³  Andrew Donnison²  Mike Civil²  David Greenfield³ 

[1] Centre for Health Systems and Patient Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales, Paddington, NSW, Australia;Chair National Standing Committee - Standards for General Practice, The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Melbourne, Australia;Centre for Clinical Governance Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, NSW, Australia

关键词: Research;    General practice;    Standards;    Healthcare;    Accreditation;   

Others  :  1091229
DOI  :  10.1186/s12913-014-0571-8

 received in 2014-02-07, accepted in 2014-10-27,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The study objective was to identify and describe the process, resources and expertise required for the revision of accreditation standards, and report outcomes arising from such activities.

Methods

Secondary document analysis of materials from an accreditation standards development agency. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners’ (RACGP) documents, minutes and reports related to the revision of the accreditation standards were examined.

Results

The RACGP revision of the accreditation standards was conducted over a 12 month period and comprised six phases with multiple tasks, including: review methodology planning; review of the evidence base and each standard; new material development; constructing field trial methodology; drafting, trialling and refining new standards; and production of new standards. Over 100 individuals participated, with an additional 30 providing periodic input and feedback. Participants were drawn from healthcare professional associations, primary healthcare services, accreditation agencies, government agencies and public health organisations. Their expertise spanned: project management; standards development and writing; primary healthcare practice; quality and safety improvement methodologies; accreditation implementation and surveying; and research. The review and development process was shaped by five issues: project expectations; resource and time requirements; a collaborative approach; stakeholder engagement; and the product produced. The RACGP evaluation was that participants were positive about their experience, the standards produced and considered them relevant for the sector.

Conclusions

The revision of accreditation standards requires considerable resources and expertise, drawn from a broad range of stakeholders. Collaborative, inclusive processes that engage key stakeholders helps promote greater industry acceptance of the standards.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Greenfield et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]McGlynn E, Shekelle P, Hussey P: Developing, Disseminating and Assessing Standards for the National Health Service: An Assessment of Current Status and Opportunities for Improvement. RAND Health; 2008.
• [2]Greenfield D, Pawsey M, Hinchcliff R, Moldovan M, Braithwaite J: The standard of healthcare accreditation standards: a review of empirical research underpinning their development and impact.BMC Health Serv Res 2012, 12:329.
• [3]Greenfield D, Braithwaite J: Health sector accreditation research: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care 2008, 20(3):172-183.
• [4]Hinchcliff R, Greenfield D, Moldovan M, Pawsey M, Mumford V, Westbrook J, Braithwaite J: Narrative synthesis of health service accreditation literature. BMJ Qual Saf 2012, 21:979-991.
• [5]National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards. Commonwealth of Australia, Sydney, Australia; 2011.
• [6][www.accreditation.ca/review-our-standards] webcite Access to Standards. []
• [7]Braithwaite J, Shaw C, Moldovan M, Greenfield D, Hinchcliff R, Mumford V, Kristensen M, Westbrook J, Nicklin W, Fortune T, Whittaker S: Comparison of health service accreditation in low- and middle-income countries with those in higher income countries: a cross sectional study. Int J Qual Health Care 2012, 24(6):568-577.
• [8]Liamputtong P: Qualitative Research Methods. 3rd edition. Oxford University Press, Melbourne; 2009.
• [9]Creswell J: Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Sage Publications, London; 2007.
• [10]Greenfield D, Pawsey M, Braithwaite J: Accreditation: A Global Regulatory Mechanism to Promote Quality and Safety. In Continuous Quality Improvement in Health Care. 4th edition. Edited by Sollecito W, Johnson J. Jones and Barlett Learning, New York; 2013:513-531.
• [11]Greenfield D, Pawsey M, Braithwaite J: The role and impact of accreditation on the healthcare revolution. O papel e o impacto da acreditação na revolução da atenção à saúde. Acreditação 2012, 1(2):1-14.
• [12]Braithwaite J, Westbrook J, Johnston B, Clark S, Brandon M, Banks M, Hughes C, Greenfield D, Pawsey M, Corbett A, Georgiou A, Callen J, Øvretveit J, Pope C, Suñol R, Shaw C, Debono D, Westbrook M, Hinchcliff R, Moldovan M: Strengthening organizational performance through accreditation research: the ACCREDIT project.BMC Res Notes 2011, 4:390.
• [13]Greenfield D, Hinchcliff R, Moldovan M, Mumford V, Pawsey M, Westbrook JJB, Braithwaite J: A multi-method research investigation of consumer involvement in Australian health service accreditation programs: the ACCREDIT-SCI study protocol.BMJ Open 2012, 2:329.
• [14]Hinchcliff R, Greenfield D, Moldovan M, Pawsey M, Mumford V, Westbrook JJB, Braithwaite J: Evaluation of current Australian health services accreditation processes (ACCREDIT-CAP): a protocol for a mixed method research project.BMJ Open 2012, 0:e001726.
• [15]Mumford V, Greenfield D, Hinchcliff R, Moldovan M, Forde K, Westbrook J, Braithwaite J: Economic evaluation of Australian acute care accreditation (ACCREDIT-CBA [acute]): study protocol for a mixed-method research project.BMJ Open 2013, 3:e002381.
• [16]Braithwaite J, Greenfield D, Westbrook J, Pawsey M, Westbrook M, Gibberd R, Naylor J, Nathan S, Robinson M, Runciman B, Jackson M, Travaglia J, Johnston B, Yen D, McDonald H, Low L, Redman S, Johnson B, Corbett A, Hennessy D, Clark J, Lancaster J: Health service accreditation as a predictor of clinical and organisational performance: a blinded, random, stratified study. Qual Saf Health Care 2010, 19(1):14-21.
• [17]Greenfield D, Braithwaite J: Developing the evidence base for accreditation of healthcare organizations: a call for transparency and innovation. Qual Saf Health Care 2009, 18:162-163.
• [18]Greenfield D, Braithwaite J, Pawsey M: Health care accreditation surveyor styles typology. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 2008, 21(5):435-443.
• [19]Greenfield D, Braithwaite J, Pawsey M, Johnson B, Robinson M: Distributed leadership to mobilise capacity for accreditation research. J Health Organ Manage 2009, 23(2):255-267.
• [20]Greenfield D, Hinchcliff R, Westbrook M, Jones D, Low L, Johnston B, Banks M, Pawsey M, Moldovan M, Westbrook J, Braithwaite J: An empirical test of accreditation patient journey surveys: randomised trial. Int J Qual Health Care 2012, 24(5):495-500.
• [21]Greenfield D, Moldovan M, Westbrook M, Jones D, Low L, Johnston B, Clark S, Banks M, Pawsey M, Hinchcliff R, Westbrook J, Braithwaite J: An empirical test of short notice surveys in two accreditation programs. Int J Qual Health Care 2012, 24(1):65-71.
• [22]Greenfield D, Pawsey M, Braithwaite J: What motivates health professionals to engage in the accreditation of healthcare organizations? Int J Qual Health Care 2011, 23(1):8-14.
• [23]Greenfield D, Pawsey M, Naylor J, Braithwaite J: Are accreditation surveys reliable? Int J Health Care Qual Assur 2009, 22(2):105-116.
• [24]Greenfield D, Pawsey M, Naylor J, Braithwaite J: Researching the reliability of accreditation survey teams: lessons learnt when things went awry. Health Inform Manage 2013, 42(1):4-10.
• [25]Australia’s Health 2012. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra; 2012.
• [26]Australian General Practice Accreditation Limited and Quality in Practice: Australian General Practice Accreditation Limited and Quality in Practice Pty Ltd Annual Report. In ᅟ. Brisbane: ᅟ; 2012.