Staff perceptions of change resulting from participation in a European cancer accreditation programme: a snapshot from eight cancer centres

Abstract

BackgroundHealthcare accreditation is considered to be an essential quality improvement tool. However, its effectiveness has been critiqued.MethodsTwenty-four interviews were conducted with clinicians (five), nurses (six), managers (eight), and basic/translational researchers (five) from eight European cancer centres on changes observed from participating in a European cancer accreditation programme. Data were thematically analysed and verified with participants and checked against auditor’s feedback.ResultsFour change categories emerged: (i) the growing importance of the nursing and supportive care field (role change). Nurses gained more autonomy/clarity on their daily duties. Importance was given to the hiring and training of supportive care personnel (ii) critical thinking on data integration (strategic change). Managers gained insight on how to integrate institutional level data (iii) improved processes within multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings (procedural change). Clinical staff experienced improved communication between MDTs (iv) building trust (organisational change). Accreditation improved the centre’s credibility with its own staff and externally with funders and patients. No motivational changes were perceived. Researchers perceived no changes. The auditor’s feedback included changes in 13 areas: translational research, biobanks, clinical trials, patient privacy and satisfaction, cancer registries, clinical practice guidelines, patient education, screening, primary prevention, role of nurses, MDT, supportive care, and data integration. However, our study revealed that staff perceived changes only in the last four areas.ConclusionStaff perceived changes in data integration, nursing and supportive care, and in certain clinical aspects. Accreditation programmes must pay attention to the needs of different stakeholder groups, track changes, and observe how/why change happens.

Participation of Italian Cancer Centres of the Alleanza Contro Il Cancro (ACC) in the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) Accreditation and Designation Program: A Successful First National Initiative

“…This national program involving 11 cancer centers was successful in that all reviews were completed and accredited on time and on budget. Also notable was the engagement by all disciplines and all levels of staff in the centers (3). At the closing meeting of a 2-day center review, it was not uncommon to see around 100 members of staff attending the feedback.…”

Explaining the accreditation process from the institutional isomorphism perspective: a case study of Jordanian primary healthcare centers

“…Being accredited and legitimized pushed health centers to follow approaches of high‐performing accredited health centers. However, accreditation in the primary care sector is generally seen as a tool for assessing and benchmarking the performances of healthcare settings across a wide range of clinical and organizational domains (Lester et al ., ; Pomey et al ., ; Rajan et al ., ). On the other hand, uncertainty and limited resources encouraged health centers to practice “shortcut” approaches.…”

Quality‐assured research environments for translational cancer research

“…The OECI programme has been a great success and has resulted in the assessment of around 50 comprehensive cancer centres in Europe. Because many centres should – with some effort – be able to meet the quality standards defined by the OECI, this programme has already substantially augmented the quality of basic, translational and clinical cancer research in institutions throughout Europe (Rajan et al ., ) and now exploits an advanced e‐tool to facilitate communication between the centres and the audit team (Wind et al ., ). Furthermore, the OECI accreditation programme has been recently ISQua‐certified, thereby providing international recognition for this programme.…”