Perception of Hospital Accreditation Impact among Quality Management Professionals in India: A Survey-Based Multicenter Study

Abstract

Introduction Accreditation ensures the standard of healthcare, yet accreditation effects on service quality are much debated. Some perceive it as improving quality and organizational performance, whereas others see it as overly bureaucratic and time-consuming, so adding it has limited advantage. The aim of the present study was to understand the perception of hospital staff working in quality management (i.e., doctors, nurses, and administrators) on accreditation, and determine whether years of accreditation have had any impact on their perception. Methods This was a cross-sectional, descriptive, data-based study initiated by the Consortium of Accredited Healthcare Organizations. It consisted of primary data obtained in form of responses to a 30-item questionnaire and collected from 415 respondents. A probability (p) value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results For all 30 items, a significantly greater number of participants had a favorable response (p < 0.001). A greater number of administrators, as compared with doctors and nurses, responded positively on the impact of accreditation (p < 0.05). Participants from hospitals with 1–4 years of accreditation, as compared with participants from hospitals with 4–12 years of accreditation, gave a favorable response (p < 0.05). Conclusion One of the most important hurdles to implementing accreditation programs is the dilemma of healthcare professionals, especially senior hospital staff, regarding the positive impact of accreditation. The need to educate healthcare professionals about the potential benefits of accreditation, which should resolve any cynical attitude of healthcare professionals towards accreditation, is of utmost importance.

The attitudes of hospital directors towards normalising accreditation standards: A qualitative descriptive study for Saudi Arabia

“…Consistent with previous studies [ 6 , 10 , 22 ], the overall attitude of the participants towards accreditation was favourable. However, the years of experience might have had a confounding effect, as those participants with longer experience or previous exposure to accreditation perceived accreditation more meaningfully; a notion that is supported in Ellis et al.…”

“…In the implementation phase, ‘collective actions’, a series of purposeful activities, were necessary to routinise standards in daily operations. As reported in various contexts, these actions were challenged by financial restrictions [ 4 , 25 ], structural inadequacy and sceptical behaviour of leaders [ 6 ]. Furthermore, time constraints and co-worker stress generated certain workarounds to achieve artificial happy ends, resulting in a mismatch between the actual practice and the evidence handed to the accreditation survey team [ 24 , 26 ].…”

“…Similarly, the evidence on the perception of stakeholders on whether accreditation is effective presents a mixed picture [ 3 ]. Some studies criticise accreditation for being disruptive to patient care, timely, costly, bureaucratic and insensitive to outcomes [ 4 , 5 ], while others praise its role in promoting organisational performance and standardising processes [ 6 , 7 ]. Mitchell et al .…”

Evidence on hospital accreditation to leverage its prospects for improvement

“…In the accreditation literature, the 20 perception of stakeholders on whether accreditation is effective presents a mixed view [11]. While some have criticized accreditation for being time-consuming, expensive, and bureaucratic [29,30], others have praised its role in promoting performance, improving safety culture, and standardizing organizational processes [31,66]. In fact, hospital leaders play a key role in pursuing accreditation [62,63].…”

“…Similarly, the evidence on the perception of stakeholders on whether accreditation is effective presents a mixed picture [11]. Some studies criticize accreditation for being disruptive to patient care, timely, costly, bureaucratic, and insensitive to outcomes [29,30], while others praise its role in promoting organizational performance and standardizing processes [31,66]. Mitchell et al [21] intensify the role of accreditation in innervating performance improvement by bridging the know-do gap.…”