Managing to improve quality

Thornlow, Deirdre; Merwin, Elizabeth

doi:10.1097/hmr.0b013e3181a16bce

Cited by 35 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(44 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of studies were published in two years, 2003 [20,26-29] and 2009 [17,18,30,31], with five and four studies, respectively. One study was published in each of the following years: 1995 [32], 2004 [33], 2007 [34] and 2008 [35].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies were conducted in six countries. The United States of America (USA) was the setting for the majority of studies (n = 8) [17,18,26,29,31-34]. The remaining five countries all had one study: United Kingdom [35]; Philippines [30]; Australia [20]; South Africa [27]; and Taiwan [28].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of studies had a multidisciplinary focus (n = 9) [17,18,20,26-28,32-34] and the practices of nurses [30,35] and managers [29,31] were the individual focus of two studies each. Research projects used mixed methods [20,32-35], employed quantitative methodologies to examine archival databases [17,18,26,28,31] or undertook a questionnaire survey [27,29,30]. Within the mixed methods studies the qualitative tools were questionnaires, surveys, interviews, reviews and evaluations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study content was categorised according to the focus of the papers, that is, program, clinical or workplace issues. Program issues was the topic that most studies examined via four different program sub-topics: reviews of programs (n = 5) [18,20,28,29,31]; policy compliance (n = 4) [17,32-34]; program impacts (n = 3) [26,27,30]; and organisational environment (n = 1) [35]. Just five studies had content relating to clinical care [17,18,20,26,34] and one on staff workplace issues [35].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This approach is valid for two reasons. First, there are overlaps between how regulatory strategies are at times discussed in the literature [18-20]. The reviewing of abstracts or the full papers provided a mechanism by which to screen out literature not on the study topic.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The standard of healthcare accreditation standards: a review of empirical research underpinning their development and impact

Greenfield

Pawsey

Hinchcliff

et al. 2012

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHealthcare accreditation standards are advocated as an important means of improving clinical practice and organisational performance. Standard development agencies have documented methodologies to promote open, transparent, inclusive development processes where standards are developed by members. They assert that their methodologies are effective and efficient at producing standards appropriate for the health industry. However, the evidence to support these claims requires scrutiny. The study’s purpose was to examine the empirical research that grounds the development methods and application of healthcare accreditation standards.MethodsA multi-method strategy was employed over the period March 2010 to August 2011. Five academic health research databases (Medline, Psych INFO, Embase, Social work abstracts, and CINAHL) were interrogated, the websites of 36 agencies associated with the study topic were investigated, and a snowball search was undertaken. Search criteria included accreditation research studies, in English, addressing standards and their impact. Searching in stage 1 initially selected 9386 abstracts. In stage 2, this selection was refined against the inclusion criteria; empirical studies (n = 2111) were identified and refined to a selection of 140 papers with the exclusion of clinical or biomedical and commentary pieces. These were independently reviewed by two researchers and reduced to 13 articles that met the study criteria.ResultsThe 13 articles were analysed according to four categories: overall findings; standards development; implementation issues; and impact of standards. Studies have only occurred in the acute care setting, predominately in 2003 (n = 5) and 2009 (n = 4), and in the United States (n = 8). A multidisciplinary focus (n = 9) and mixed method approach (n = 11) are common characteristics. Three interventional studies were identified, with the remaining 10 studies having research designs to investigate clinical or organisational impacts. No study directly examined standards development or other issues associated with their progression. Only one study noted implementation issues, identifying several enablers and barriers. Standards were reported to improve organisational efficiency and staff circumstances. However, the impact on clinical quality was mixed, with both improvements and a lack of measurable effects recorded.ConclusionStandards are ubiquitous within healthcare and are generally considered to be an important means by which to improve clinical practice and organisational performance. However, there is a lack of robust empirical evidence examining the development, writing, implementation and impacts of healthcare accreditation standards.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The standard of healthcare accreditation standards: a review of empirical research underpinning their development and impact

Greenfield

Pawsey

Hinchcliff

et al. 2012

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Developing hospital accreditation standards in Uganda

Galukande

Katamba

Nakasujja

et al. 2015

Health Planning & Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Iran hospital accreditation standards: challenges and solutions

Ghazanfari

Mosadeghrad

Pooyan

et al. 2021

Health Planning & Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify the challenges of Iranian hospital accreditation standards and provide solutions. Design: A qualitative research design was used in this study. Open and semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2018. Thematic analysis was used to analyse qualitative data. Setting: Public, private, semi-public, charity and military hospitals in Tehran, Iran. Participants: A pluralistic evaluation approach was employed and 151 participants including policy makers, hospital management and staff, accreditation surveyors and university professors participated in this study. Results: Challenges of hospital accreditation standards were grouped into two groups: standards development process and standards content. Lack of an independent standards development committee, insufficient expertise of committee members, inconsistencies among the standards' constructs, inappropriate standard classification, ambiguity of standards, unmeasurable standards, vague and inflexible scoring system, and inability to use some standards were the main challenges of Iran hospital accreditation standards. Establishing a scientific committee consisting of representative from hospitals, health insurance companies, professional and scientific associations and universities for standard development, training the committee members,

show abstract

Managing to improve quality

Cited by 35 publications

References 43 publications

The standard of healthcare accreditation standards: a review of empirical research underpinning their development and impact

The standard of healthcare accreditation standards: a review of empirical research underpinning their development and impact

Developing hospital accreditation standards in Uganda

Iran hospital accreditation standards: challenges and solutions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About