Impact of hospital accreditation on quality improvement in healthcare: A systematic review
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Alhawajreh M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10697559 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAccreditation is viewed as a reputable tool to evaluate and enhance the quality of health care. However, its effect on performance and outcomes remains unclear. This review aimed to identify and analyze the evidence on the impact of hospital accreditation.MethodsWe systematically searched electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, MEDLINE (OvidSP), CDSR, CENTRAL, ScienceDirect, SSCI, RSCI, SciELO, and KCI) and other sources using relevant subject headings. We included peer-reviewed quantitative studies published over the last two decades, irrespective of its design or language. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, two reviewers independently screened initially identified articles, reviewed the full-text of potentially relevant studies, extracted necessary data, and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using a validated tool. The accreditation effects were synthesized and categorized thematically into six impact themes.ResultsWe screened a total of 17,830 studies, of which 76 empirical studies that examined the impact of accreditation met our inclusion criteria. These studies were methodologically heterogeneous. Apart from the effect of accreditation on healthcare workers and particularly on job stress, our results indicate a consistent positive effect of hospital accreditation on safety culture, process-related performance measures, efficiency, and the patient length of stay, whereas employee satisfaction, patient satisfaction and experience, and 30-day hospital readmission rate were found to be unrelated to accreditation. Paradoxical results regarding the impact of accreditation on mortality rate and healthcare-associated infections hampered drawing firm conclusions on these outcome measures.ConclusionThere is reasonable evidence to support the notion that compliance with accreditation standards has multiple plausible benefits in improving the performance in the hospital setting. Despite inconclusive evidence on causality, introducing hospital accreditation schemes stimulates performance improvement and patient safety. Efforts to incentivize and modernize accreditation are recommended to move towards institutionalization and sustaining the performance gains. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020167863.
| S-EPMC8493726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite mergers have increasingly affected hospitals in the recent decades, literature on the impact of hospitals mergers on healthcare quality measures (HQM) is still lacking. Our research aimed to systematically review evidence regarding the impact of hospital mergers on HQM focusing especially on process indicators and clinical outcomes.MethodsThe search was carried out until January 2020 using the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome model, querying electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Web Of Science) and refining the search with hand search. Studies that assessed HQM of hospitals that have undergone a merger were included. HQMs were analyzed through a narrative synthesis and a strength of the evidence analysis based on the quality of the studies and the consistency of the findings.ResultsThe 16 articles, included in the narrative synthesis, reported inconsistent findings and few statistically significant results. All indicators analyzed showed an insufficient strength of evidence to achieve conclusive results. However, a tendency in the decrease of the number of beds, hospital staff and inpatient admissions and an increase in both mortality and readmission rate for acute myocardial infarction and stroke emerged in our analysis.ConclusionsIn our study, there is no strong evidence of improvement or worsening of HQM in hospital mergers. Since a limited amount of studies currently exists, additional studies are needed. In the meanwhile, hospital managers involved in mergers should adopt a clear evaluation framework with indicators that help to periodically and systematically assess HQM ascertaining that mergers ensure and primarily do not reduce the quality of care.
| S-EPMC9090279 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this study was to evaluate the process of accreditation resulting in improvement of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) functioning.Randomly selected projects from years 2007 (before accreditation), 2010 (after accreditation), and 2013 (after reaccreditation) were evaluated to assess parameters, namely, submission of good clinical practices (GCPs), completeness of IRB submission form, fulfillment of quorum, documentation of the declaration of conflict of interests, and submission of the status reports. Compliance to these parameters was compared over a period of 3 years.A total of seventy projects were evaluated retrospectively. Compliance of the principal investigators regarding submission of GCP certificates increased substantially from 5% to 53.1%. Completeness of IRB forms was 80% in 2007 while it became 100% in 2010 and continued even in 2013. Fulfillment of quorum increased significantly from 35% in 2007 to 100% in 2010 and 2013 after the accreditation procedures. Out of the selected twenty projects (2007), nonfinancial conflict of interest was not declared in all three applicable projects, while of 18 projects (2010), nonfinancial conflict of interest was declared in all three applicable cases. Of 32 projects (2013), nonfinancial conflict of interest was declared in seven out of eight applicable cases. Timely submission of status reports increased from 10% in 2007 to 38.9% in 2010 and 37.5% in 2013.Accreditation plays a vital role in the improvement of IRB. The policies and procedures formulated and implemented during the process of accreditation resulted in improvement of IRB performance. Continuing training of the IRB and researchers is required to maintain the accreditation.
| S-EPMC5543766 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundGlobal spending on health was continuing to rise over the past 20 years. To reduce the growth rates, alleviate information asymmetry, and improve the efficiency of healthcare markets, global health systems have initiated price and quality transparency tools in the hospital industry in the last two decades. OBJECTIVE : The objective of this review is to synthesize whether, to what extent, and how hospital price and quality transparency tools affected 1) the price of healthcare procedures and services, 2) the payments of consumers, and 3) the premium of health insurance plans bonding with hospital networks.MethodsA literature search of EMBASE, Web of Science, Econlit, Scopus, Pubmed, CINAHL, and PsychINFO was conducted, from inception to Oct 31, 2021. Reference lists and tracked citations of retrieved articles were hand-searched. Study characteristics were extracted, and included studies were scored through a risk of bias assessment framework. This systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO with registration No. CRD42022319070.ResultsOf 2157 records identified, 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. Near 40 percent of studies focused on hospital quality transparency tools, and more than 90 percent of studies were from the US. Hospital price transparency reduced the price of laboratory and imaging tests except for office-visit services. Hospital quality transparency declined the level or growth rates of healthcare spending, while it adversely and significantly raised the price of healthcare services and consumers' payment in higher-ranked or rated facilities, which was referred to as the reputation premium in the healthcare industry. Hospital quality transparency not only leveraged private insurers bonding with a higher-rated hospital network to increase premiums, but also induced their anticipated pricing behaviors.ConclusionHospital price and quality transparency was not effective as expected. Future research should explore the understudied consequences of hospital quality transparency programs, such as the reputation/rating premium and its policy intervention.
| S-EPMC9749158 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Manyata program is a quality improvement initiative for private healthcare facilities in India which provided maternity care services. Under this initiative, technical assistance was provided to selected facilities in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Maharashtra which were interested in obtaining 'entry level certification' under the National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Healthcare Providers (NABH) for provision of quality services. This paper describes the change in quality at those Manyata-supported facilities when assessed by the NABH standards of care.MethodsTwenty-eight private-sector facilities underwent NABH assessments in the three states from August 2017 to February 2019. Baseline assessment (by program staff) and NABH assessment (by NABH assessors) findings were compared to assess the change in quality of care as per NABH standards of care. The reported performance gaps from NABH assessments were then also classified by thematic areas and suggested corrective actions based on program implementation experience.ResultsThe overall adherence to NABH standards of care improved from 9% in the baseline assessment to 80% in the NABH assessment. A total of 831 performance gaps were identified by the NABH assessments, of which documentation issues accounted for a majority (70%), followed by training (19%). Most performance gaps could be corrected either by revising existing documentation or creating new documentation (62%), or by orienting facility staff on various protocols (35%).ConclusionWhile the adherence of facilities to the NABH standards of care improved considerably, certain performance gaps remained, which were primarily related to documentation of facility policies and protocols and training of staff, and required corrective actions for the facilities to achieve NABH entry level certification.
| S-EPMC10375635 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives in improving the quality of care.Data sourcesRelevant studies through Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases.Study selectionTwo reviewers independently extracted data on topics, participants, setting, study design, and outcomes.Data synthesisOf 1104 articles identified, 72 were included in the study. Twelve reports representing nine studies (including two randomised controlled trials) used a controlled design to measure the effects of the quality improvement collaborative intervention on care processes or outcomes of care. Systematic review of these nine studies showed moderate positive results. Seven studies (including one randomised controlled trial) reported an effect on some of the selected outcome measures. Two studies (including one randomised controlled trial) did not show any significant effect.ConclusionsThe evidence underlying quality improvement collaboratives is positive but limited and the effects cannot be predicted with great certainty. Considering that quality improvement collaboratives seem to play a key part in current strategies focused on accelerating improvement, but may have only modest effects on outcomes at best, further knowledge of the basic components effectiveness, cost effectiveness, and success factors is crucial to determine the value of quality improvement collaboratives.
| S-EPMC2440907 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivePerformance visualisation tools are increasingly being applied in healthcare to enhance decision-making and improve quality of care. However, there is a lack of comprehensive synthesis of their overall effectiveness and the contextual factors that influence their success in different clinical settings. This study aims to provide a broad synthesis of visualisation interventions not limited to a specific department.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMEDLINE and Embase were searched until December 2022.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies in English involving a visualisation intervention, either alone or as a core intervention, that reported quantitative outcomes including process and outcome indicators.Data extraction and synthesisData on study characteristics, intervention characteristics, outcome measures and results were extracted. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, and risk of bias was evaluated with Risk of Bias 2 for RCTs and Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions for non-randomised studies. RESULTS : Of the 12 studies included, 2 were RCTs and 10 were observational studies, including 1 before-after study and 1 interrupted time series study. Five studies (42%) were conducted in teaching hospital settings. Compared with the control group or baseline, 10 studies reported a statistically significant change in at least one of their outcome measures. A majority of the studies reported a positive impact, including prescription adherence (6/10), screening tests (3/10) and monitoring (3/10). Visualisation tool factors like type, clinical setting, workflow integration and clinician engagement, may have some influence on the effectiveness of the intervention, but no reliable evidence was identified.ConclusionPerformance visualisation tools have the potential to improve clinical performance indicators. More studies with standardised outcome measures and integrating qualitative methods are needed to understand the contextual factors that influence the effectiveness of these interventions.
| S-EPMC11535674 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hospital accreditation is an established quality improvement intervention. Despite a growing body of research, the evidence of effect remains contested. This umbrella review synthesizes reviews that examine the impacts of hospital accreditation with regard to health-care quality, highlighting research trends and knowledge gaps. Terms specific to the population: 'hospital' and the intervention: 'accreditation' were used to search seven databases: CINAHL (via EBSCOhost), Embase, Medline (via EBSCOhost), PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) EBP Database (via Ovid). 2545 references were exported to endnote. After completing a systematic screening process and chain-referencing, 33 reviews were included. Following quality assessment and data extraction, key findings were thematically grouped into the seven health-care quality dimensions. Hospital accreditation has a range of associations with health system and organizational outcomes. Effectiveness, efficiency, patient-centredness, and safety were the most researched quality dimensions. Access, equity, and timeliness were examined in only three reviews. Barriers to robust original studies were reported to have impeded conclusive evidence. The body of research was largely atheoretical, incapable of precisely explaining how or why hospital accreditation may actually influence quality improvement. The impact of hospital accreditation remains poorly understood. Future research should control for all possible variables. Research and accreditation program development should integrate concepts of implementation and behavioural science to investigate the mechanisms through which hospital accreditation may enable quality improvement.
| S-EPMC9950788 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBenchmarking has been recognised as a valuable method to help identify strengths and weaknesses at all levels of the healthcare system. Despite a growing interest in the practice and study of benchmarking, its contribution to quality of care have not been well elucidated. As such, we conducted a systematic literature review with the aim of synthesizing the evidence regarding the relationship between benchmarking and quality improvement. We also sought to provide evidence on the associated strategies that can be used to further stimulate quality improvement.MethodsWe searched three databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus) for articles studying the impact of benchmarking on quality of care (processes and outcomes). Following assessment of the articles for inclusion, we conducted data analysis, quality assessment and critical synthesis according to the PRISMA guidelines for systematic literature review.ResultsA total of 17 articles were identified. All studies reported a positive association between the use of benchmarking and quality improvement in terms of processes (N = 10), outcomes (N = 13) or both (N = 7). In the majority of studies (N = 12), at least one intervention, complementary to benchmarking, was undertaken to stimulate quality improvement. The interventions ranged from meetings between participants to quality improvement plans and financial incentives. A combination of multiple interventions was present in over half of the studies (N = 10).ConclusionsThe results generated from this review suggest that the practice of benchmarking in healthcare is a growing field, and more research is needed to better understand its effects on quality improvement. Furthermore, our findings indicate that benchmarking may stimulate quality improvement, and that interventions, complementary to benchmarking, seem to reinforce this improvement. Although this study points towards the benefit of combining performance measurement with interventions in terms of quality, future research should further analyse the impact of these interventions individually.
| S-EPMC8812166 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:In increasingly constrained healthcare budgets worldwide, efforts to improve quality and reduce costs are vital. Quality Improvement Collaboratives (QICs) are often used in healthcare settings to implement proven clinical interventions within local and national programs. The cost of this method of implementation, however, is cited as a barrier to use. This systematic review aims to identify and describe studies reporting on costs and cost-effectiveness of QICs when used to implement clinical guidelines in healthcare. METHODS:Multiple databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, EconLit and ProQuest) were searched for economic evaluations or cost studies of QICs in healthcare. Studies were included if they reported on economic evaluations or costs of QICs. Two authors independently reviewed citations and full text papers. Key characteristics of eligible studies were extracted, and their quality assessed against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). Evers CHEC-List was used for full economic evaluations. Cost-effectiveness findings were interpreted through the Johanna Briggs Institute 'three by three dominance matrix tool' to guide conclusions. Currencies were converted to United States dollars for 2018 using OECD and World Bank databases. RESULTS:Few studies reported on costs or economic evaluations of QICs despite their use in healthcare. Eight studies across multiple healthcare settings in acute and long-term care, community addiction treatment and chronic disease management were included. Five were considered good quality and favoured the establishment of QICs as cost-effective implementation methods. The cost savings to the healthcare setting identified in these studies outweighed the cost of the collaborative itself. CONCLUSIONS:Potential cost savings to the health care system in both acute and chronic conditions may be possible by applying QICs at scale. However, variations in effectiveness, costs and elements of the method within studies, indicated that caution is needed. Consistent identification of costs and description of the elements applied in QICs would better inform decisions for their use and may reduce perceived barriers. Lack of studies with negative findings may have been due to publication bias. Future research should include economic evaluations with societal perspectives of costs and savings and the cost-effectiveness of elements of QICs. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018107417.
| S-EPMC7053095 | biostudies-literature