Health sector accreditation research: a systematic review

Greenfield, David; Braithwaite, Jeffrey

doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzn005

Cited by 425 publications

(466 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

400

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[23,30,31] In other systematic reviews, accreditation programs are consistently found to facilitate improvements in medical institutions and healthcare quality. [32][33][34] The standards included in this study are intended to determine whether the goals and purpose of the accreditation system are being achieved well. In the future, it will be necessary to carry out additional research to determine how accreditation affects patients' well-being as well as research to evaluate outcome indicators, and cost-effectiveness studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The perception of healthcare employees and the impact of healthcare accreditation on the quality of healthcare in Korea

Park¹,

Jung²,

Suk

2017

JHA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: In order to encourage more hospitals to participate in the accreditation, there needs to be "substantial evidence of the effectiveness of accreditation". The aim of this study was to identify and analyze healthcare employees' perceptions of hospital accreditation and the impact of hospital accreditation on the quality of healthcare in Korea. Methods: Eight electronic databases were searched between June and July 2016. Of the initially identified 392 abstracts, 14 empirical studies on healthcare accreditation in Korea were selected based on the inclusion criteria. These were retrieved and analyzed. Results: The 14 studies assessed healthcare employees' perception of hospital accreditation as well as the impact of hospital accreditation on the quality of healthcare. The results were classified into four categories according to perception (Need, Purpose, Intent, and Relevance of standards), and into five categories according to the impact of accreditation (Patient safety and healthcare quality, Satisfaction with hospital employees, Leadership, Organizational culture, and Managerial performance). Findings showed that healthcare employees' had good understanding of the purpose, need, and intention of the healthcare accreditation system, but indicated that limitations exist with the accreditation standards. Moreover, evidence showed that healthcare accreditation in Korea has made a positive impact on "patient safety and healthcare quality", "leadership" and "organizational culture". Conclusions: Healthcare accreditation has had a positive overall impact on hospitals and has improved the quality of healthcare as well as patient safety. However, more rigorous research and more diverse research methods are required to determine its long-term effect.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The perception of healthcare employees and the impact of healthcare accreditation on the quality of healthcare in Korea

Park¹,

Jung²,

Suk

2017

JHA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…org). ISQua is dedicated to the health care sector, has 70 member countries (Greenfield & Braithwaite, 2008), including Denmark. While accreditation has been the national strategy for quality development in Denmark, this is not the case in the other Nordic countries and the main experience of accreditation in the Nordic countries is from Denmark (Engel & Andersen, 2017).…”

Section: Quality Development and Accreditationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality Development in Health Care: Participation vs. Accreditation

Simonsen

Hertzum

Scheuer

2018

NJWLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 A complex picture emerges from reviews of healthcare accreditation schemes worldwide but two key features are common -promoting change and professional development. 2 Accreditation in primary care settings is generally seen as a way of assessing and benchmarking the performance of general practice care across a broad range of clinical and organisational domains. 3 It describes a formal process of selfassessment and external and independent peer review to encourage best practice and can result in recommendations for continuous quality improvement of safety and quality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%