Options to enhance the veracity of Australian health service accreditation assessments.

Reece Hinchcliff, Deborah Debono, David Carter, Miriam Glennie, Hamish Robertson, Joanne Travaglia
{"title":"Options to enhance the veracity of Australian health service accreditation assessments.","authors":"Reece Hinchcliff,&nbsp;Deborah Debono,&nbsp;David Carter,&nbsp;Miriam Glennie,&nbsp;Hamish Robertson,&nbsp;Joanne Travaglia","doi":"10.1177/1833358320910890","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Assessment processes applied within some health service accreditation programs have been criticised at times for being inaccurate, inconsistent or inefficient. Such criticism has inspired the development of innovative assessment methods.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care considered the use of three such methods: short-notice or unannounced methods; patient journey or tracer methods; and attestation by governing bodies.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A systematic search and synthesis of published peer-reviewed and grey literature associated with these methods.</p><p><strong>Results and conclusion: </strong>The published literature demonstrates that the likely benefits of these three assessment methods warrant further evaluation, real-world trials and stakeholder consultation to determine the most appropriate models to introduce into national accreditation programs.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>The subsequent introduction of models of short-notice assessments and attestation by governing bodies into the Australian Health Service Safety and Quality Accreditation Scheme in January 2019 demonstrates how the findings presented in this article influenced the national change in assessment practice, providing an example of evidence-informed accreditation development.</p>","PeriodicalId":73210,"journal":{"name":"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia","volume":"51 2","pages":"59-62"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1833358320910890","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1833358320910890","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/3/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Assessment processes applied within some health service accreditation programs have been criticised at times for being inaccurate, inconsistent or inefficient. Such criticism has inspired the development of innovative assessment methods.

Objective: The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care considered the use of three such methods: short-notice or unannounced methods; patient journey or tracer methods; and attestation by governing bodies.

Method: A systematic search and synthesis of published peer-reviewed and grey literature associated with these methods.

Results and conclusion: The published literature demonstrates that the likely benefits of these three assessment methods warrant further evaluation, real-world trials and stakeholder consultation to determine the most appropriate models to introduce into national accreditation programs.

Implications: The subsequent introduction of models of short-notice assessments and attestation by governing bodies into the Australian Health Service Safety and Quality Accreditation Scheme in January 2019 demonstrates how the findings presented in this article influenced the national change in assessment practice, providing an example of evidence-informed accreditation development.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
提高澳大利亚卫生服务认证评估准确性的备选办法。
背景:在一些卫生服务认证项目中应用的评估过程有时因不准确、不一致或效率低下而受到批评。这种批评激发了创新评估方法的发展。目标:澳大利亚卫生保健安全和质量委员会考虑使用三种这样的方法:临时通知或未经宣布的方法;病人旅程或追踪方法;以及管理机构的认证。方法:系统地搜索和综合与这些方法相关的已发表的同行评审文献和灰色文献。结果和结论:已发表的文献表明,这三种评估方法可能带来的好处值得进一步评估、现实世界的试验和利益相关者咨询,以确定最适合引入国家认证计划的模型。影响:随后,管理机构于2019年1月在澳大利亚卫生服务安全和质量认证计划中引入了短期通知评估和认证模式,这表明本文提出的研究结果如何影响了国家评估实践的变化,提供了一个循证认证发展的例子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Health information management students' work-integrated learning (professional practice placements): Where do they go and what do they do? Physician-clinical coder collaboration effectively improves coding accuracy: A single-centre prospective study in China. Physicians' acceptance and adoption of mobile health applications during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model. The health information management workforce: Looking to the future. Demystifying environmental health-related diseases: Using ICD codes to facilitate environmental health clinical referrals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1