BackgroundThe increased international focus on improving patient outcomes, safety and quality of care has led stakeholders, policy makers and healthcare provider organizations to adopt standardized processes for evaluating healthcare organizations. Accreditation and certification have been proposed as interventions to support patient safety and high quality healthcare. Guidelines recommend accreditation but are cautious about the evidence, judged as inconclusive. The push for accreditation continues despite sparse evidence to support its efficiency or effectiveness.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) indexes and keyword searches in any language. Studies were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and AMSTAR framework. 915 abstracts were screened and 20 papers were reviewed in full in January 2013. Inclusion criteria included studies addressing the effect of hospital accreditation and certification using systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, observational studies with a control group, or interrupted time series. Outcomes included both clinical outcomes and process measures. An updated literature search in July 2014 identified no new studies.ResultsThe literature review uncovered three systematic reviews and one randomized controlled trial. The lone study assessed the effects of accreditation on hospital outcomes and reported inconsistent results. Excluded studies were reviewed and their findings summarized.ConclusionAccreditation continues to grow internationally but due to scant evidence, no conclusions could be reached to support its effectiveness. Our review did not find evidence to support accreditation and certification of hospitals being linked to measurable changes in quality of care as measured by quality metrics and standards. Most studies did not report intervention context, implementation, or cost. This might reflect the challenges in assessing complex, heterogeneous interventions such as accreditation and certification. It is also may be magnified by the impact of how accreditation is managed and executed, and the varied financial and organizational healthcare constraints. The strategies hospitals should impelment to improve patient safety and organizational outcomes related to accreditation and certification components remains unclear. Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0933-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectiveThis study examines the association between profession-specific work environments and the 7-day mortality of patients admitted to these units with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke and hip fracture.DesignA cross-sectional study combining patient mortality data extracted from the South-Eastern Norway Health Region, and the work environment scores at the hospital ward levels. A case-mix adjustment model was developed for the comparison between hospital wards.SettingFifty-six patient wards in 20 hospitals administered by the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority.ParticipantsIn total, 46 026 patients admitted to hospitals with AMI, stroke and hip fracture, and supported by 8800 survey responses from physicians, nurses and managers over a 3-year period (2010–2012).Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome measures were the associations between the relative mortality rate for patients admitted with AMI, stroke and hip fractures and the profession-specific (ie, nurses, physicians, middle managers) mean scores on the 19 organisational factors in a validated cross sectional, staff survey conducted annually in Norway. The secondary outcome measures were the mean scores with SD on the organisational factors in the staff survey reported by each profession.ResultsThe Nurse workload (beta 0.019 (95% CI0.009–0.028)) and middle manager engagement (beta 0.024 (95% CI0.010–0.037)) levels were associated with a case-mix adjusted 7-day patient mortality rates. There was no significant association between physician work environment scores and patient mortality rates.Conclusion7-day mortality rates in hospital wards were negatively correlated with the nurse workload and manager engagement levels. A deeper understanding of the relationships between patient outcomes, organisational structure and their underlying cultural barriers is needed because they may provide a better understanding of the harm and death risks for patients due to organisational characteristics.

Background Occupational worker wellness and safety climate are key determinants of healthcare organizations’ ability to reduce medical harm to patients while supporting their employees. We designed a longitudinal study to evaluate the association between work environment characteristics and the patient safety climate in hospital units. Methods Primary data were collected from Norwegian hospital staff from 970 clinical units in all 21 hospitals of the South-Eastern Norway Health Region using the validated Norwegian Work Environment Survey and the Norwegian version of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. Responses from 91,225 surveys were collected over a three year period. We calculated the factor mean score and a binary outcome to measure study outcomes. The relationship between the hospital unit characteristics and the observed changes in the safety climate was analyzed by linear and logistic regression models. Results A work environment conducive to safe incident reporting, innovation, and teamwork was found to be significant for positive changes in the safety climate. In addition, a work environment supportive of patient needs and staff commitment to their workplace was significant for maintaining a mature safety climate over time. Conclusions A supportive work environment is essential for patient safety. The characteristics of the hospital units were significantly associated with the unit’s safety climate scores, hence improvements in working conditions are needed for enhancing patient safety.

No abstract