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

Abstract

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.

The impact of accreditation on healthcare quality improvement: a qualitative case study

“…By exploring the factors that facilitated or hindered the impact of accreditation's implementation process on quality and patient safety improvements, this study contributes to the understanding of the reasons behind accreditation's mixed results, often found in systematic synthesis of accreditation literature (e.g. Greenfield et al, 2012). In doing so, it also adds to the theoretical development of the accreditation literature .…”

Use of the quality management system "JACIE" and outcome after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

“…Still, evidence of improved patients' outcome is scarce. [14][15][16][17] With increasing financial constraints, questions about the value of the large sums invested in health service accreditation arose in recent years. [17][18][19][20] Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is an established treatment for many patients with severe congenital or acquired disorders of the hematopoietic system.…”

Fast-track implementation of clinical health promotion

“…(135). There is a general call for more research in this area (117,118,126,(136)(137)(138)(139), and more evidence from randomized trials (32,(140)(141)(142).…”