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

Lallu Joseph, Vijay Agarwal, Umashankar Raju, Arun Mavaji, Princy Rajkumar
{"title":"Perception of Hospital Accreditation Impact among Quality Management Professionals in India: A Survey-Based Multicenter Study.","authors":"Lallu Joseph,&nbsp;Vijay Agarwal,&nbsp;Umashankar Raju,&nbsp;Arun Mavaji,&nbsp;Princy Rajkumar","doi":"10.36401/JQSH-20-44","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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 (<i>p</i>) value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For all 30 items, a significantly greater number of participants had a favorable response (<i>p</i> < 0.001). A greater number of administrators, as compared with doctors and nurses, responded positively on the impact of accreditation (<i>p</i> < 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 (<i>p</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":73170,"journal":{"name":"Global journal on quality and safety in healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10228987/pdf/i2589-9449-4-2-58.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global journal on quality and safety in healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36401/JQSH-20-44","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

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.

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
印度质量管理专业人员对医院认证影响的看法:一项基于调查的多中心研究。
简介:认证确保了医疗保健的标准,但认证对服务质量的影响仍有很多争议。一些人认为它可以提高质量和组织绩效,而另一些人则认为它过于官僚和耗时,因此增加它的好处有限。本研究的目的是了解从事质量管理工作的医院员工(即医生、护士和行政人员)对认证的看法,并确定多年的认证是否对他们的看法有任何影响。方法:这是一项由认证医疗机构联盟发起的横断面、描述性、基于数据的研究。它包括从415名受访者中收集的30项问卷的回复形式获得的主要数据。概率(p)值小于0.05被认为具有统计学意义。结果:对于所有30个项目,显著更多的参与者有良好的反应(p < 0.001)。与医生和护士相比,更多的管理人员对认证的影响做出了积极的反应(p < 0.05)。认证时间为1-4年的医院的参与者与认证时间为4-12年的医院的参与者相比,给出了较好的反馈(p < 0.05)。结论:实施认证计划最重要的障碍之一是医疗保健专业人员,特别是高级医院工作人员对认证的积极影响的困境。教育医疗保健专业人员关于认证的潜在好处的需要是至关重要的,这应该解决医疗保健专业人员对认证的任何愤世嫉俗的态度。
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
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Exploration of Mental Health and Well-Being of Healthcare Professionals During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Transforming Hospital Quality Improvement Through Harnessing the Power of Artificial Intelligence. Transforming Hospital Housekeeping: The Kayakalp Journey Patient-Centered Healthcare: From Patient Experience to Human Experience Reply to Blom: Drugs Do Not Work in Patients Who Cannot Tolerate Them
×
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