以护理为重点的国际医院评审和认证模式:范围界定审查。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMC Health Services Research Pub Date : 2024-11-12 DOI:10.1186/s12913-024-11759-6
Carolin Gurisch, Joan Kleine, Claudia Bettina Maier
{"title":"以护理为重点的国际医院评审和认证模式:范围界定审查。","authors":"Carolin Gurisch, Joan Kleine, Claudia Bettina Maier","doi":"10.1186/s12913-024-11759-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Quality assurance in hospitals is essential for ensuring patient safety, quality of care and efficiency. The nursing profession is a key contributor to healthcare quality, yet, a comprehensive overview and comparison of the role and scope of nursing as part of accreditation and certification schemes has been lacking. The aim was to identify if and to what extent international accreditation or certification schemes focus on nursing, and to compare their conceptual models and outcome indicators.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted. A search strategy was developed together with a librarian and carried out in January 2024 in Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Reviews and Google Scholar. Additionally, authoritative websites of accreditation/certification holders were searched. Inclusion criteria were studies on international accreditation or certification schemes for hospital settings with relevance to nursing published in English or German. Screening and data analysis adhered to the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology, with reporting following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guideline (PRISMA-ScR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search identified 17.315 records. After removing duplicates and screening of titles/abstracts, 336 full-texts remained. A total of 124 studies were included, identifying seven international accreditation/certification schemes: European Foundation for Quality Management, Evaluation and Quality Improvement Program, International Organization for Standardization 9001, Joint Commission International<sup>®</sup>, Magnet Recognition Program<sup>®</sup>, Pathway to Excellence<sup>®</sup> Program, Qmentum<sup>®</sup>. The different schemes ranged from nursing-specific to having no specific focus on, but relevance for, nursing and varied in their topics, focus on structure, process and outcome quality and structure and content of requirements. Additionally, outcome indicators varied, with differences in the extent to which indicators were nurse-sensitive, compulsoriness of data collection, and use of external benchmarking.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The seven international schemes show large conceptual variations as to their focus on nursing and differences in the degree of nurse-specific outcome indicators. Hospital and nursing managers, policymakers, patients and the public need to understand the content and outcome dimensions of the schemes when making decisions or assessing hospital quality data.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"24 1","pages":"1385"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11559163/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"International models of accreditation and certification for hospitals with a focus on nursing: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Carolin Gurisch, Joan Kleine, Claudia Bettina Maier\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12913-024-11759-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Quality assurance in hospitals is essential for ensuring patient safety, quality of care and efficiency. The nursing profession is a key contributor to healthcare quality, yet, a comprehensive overview and comparison of the role and scope of nursing as part of accreditation and certification schemes has been lacking. The aim was to identify if and to what extent international accreditation or certification schemes focus on nursing, and to compare their conceptual models and outcome indicators.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted. A search strategy was developed together with a librarian and carried out in January 2024 in Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Reviews and Google Scholar. Additionally, authoritative websites of accreditation/certification holders were searched. Inclusion criteria were studies on international accreditation or certification schemes for hospital settings with relevance to nursing published in English or German. Screening and data analysis adhered to the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology, with reporting following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guideline (PRISMA-ScR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search identified 17.315 records. After removing duplicates and screening of titles/abstracts, 336 full-texts remained. A total of 124 studies were included, identifying seven international accreditation/certification schemes: European Foundation for Quality Management, Evaluation and Quality Improvement Program, International Organization for Standardization 9001, Joint Commission International<sup>®</sup>, Magnet Recognition Program<sup>®</sup>, Pathway to Excellence<sup>®</sup> Program, Qmentum<sup>®</sup>. The different schemes ranged from nursing-specific to having no specific focus on, but relevance for, nursing and varied in their topics, focus on structure, process and outcome quality and structure and content of requirements. Additionally, outcome indicators varied, with differences in the extent to which indicators were nurse-sensitive, compulsoriness of data collection, and use of external benchmarking.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The seven international schemes show large conceptual variations as to their focus on nursing and differences in the degree of nurse-specific outcome indicators. Hospital and nursing managers, policymakers, patients and the public need to understand the content and outcome dimensions of the schemes when making decisions or assessing hospital quality data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Health Services Research\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"1385\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11559163/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Health Services Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11759-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11759-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:医院的质量保证对于确保患者安全、护理质量和效率至关重要。护理专业是提高医疗质量的关键因素,然而,对于护理在评审和认证计划中的作用和范围,一直缺乏全面的概述和比较。本研究旨在确定国际评审或认证计划是否以及在多大程度上关注护理工作,并对其概念模型和结果指标进行比较:方法:进行了范围界定审查。我们与一名图书管理员共同制定了检索策略,并于 2024 年 1 月在 Medline、CINAHL、Web of Science Core Collection、Cochrane Reviews 和 Google Scholar 中进行了检索。此外,还搜索了认证/证书持有者的权威网站。纳入标准为以英语或德语发表的与护理相关的医院环境国际评审或认证计划研究。筛选和数据分析遵循乔安娜-布里格斯研究所(Joanna Briggs Institute)的方法,报告遵循《系统性综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目扩展范围综述指南》(PRISMA-ScR):搜索共发现 17 315 条记录。在删除重复内容和筛选标题/摘要后,剩下 336 篇全文。共纳入 124 项研究,确定了七项国际评审/认证计划:欧洲质量管理基金会、评估和质量改进计划、国际标准化组织 9001、国际联合委员会®、磁性认可计划®、卓越之路®计划、Qmentum®。不同的计划有的专门针对护理工作,有的虽不专门针对护理工作,但却与护理工作息息相关,在主题、结构重点、过程和结果质量以及要求的结构和内容方面也各不相同。此外,结果指标也不尽相同,在指标对护士的敏感程度、数据收集的强制性以及外部基准的使用方面也存在差异:结论:七项国际计划在关注护理的概念上存在很大差异,在针对护士的结果指标的程度上也存在差异。医院和护理管理者、政策制定者、患者和公众在做出决策或评估医院质量数据时,需要了解这些计划的内容和结果维度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
International models of accreditation and certification for hospitals with a focus on nursing: a scoping review.

Background: Quality assurance in hospitals is essential for ensuring patient safety, quality of care and efficiency. The nursing profession is a key contributor to healthcare quality, yet, a comprehensive overview and comparison of the role and scope of nursing as part of accreditation and certification schemes has been lacking. The aim was to identify if and to what extent international accreditation or certification schemes focus on nursing, and to compare their conceptual models and outcome indicators.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted. A search strategy was developed together with a librarian and carried out in January 2024 in Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Reviews and Google Scholar. Additionally, authoritative websites of accreditation/certification holders were searched. Inclusion criteria were studies on international accreditation or certification schemes for hospital settings with relevance to nursing published in English or German. Screening and data analysis adhered to the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology, with reporting following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guideline (PRISMA-ScR).

Results: The search identified 17.315 records. After removing duplicates and screening of titles/abstracts, 336 full-texts remained. A total of 124 studies were included, identifying seven international accreditation/certification schemes: European Foundation for Quality Management, Evaluation and Quality Improvement Program, International Organization for Standardization 9001, Joint Commission International®, Magnet Recognition Program®, Pathway to Excellence® Program, Qmentum®. The different schemes ranged from nursing-specific to having no specific focus on, but relevance for, nursing and varied in their topics, focus on structure, process and outcome quality and structure and content of requirements. Additionally, outcome indicators varied, with differences in the extent to which indicators were nurse-sensitive, compulsoriness of data collection, and use of external benchmarking.

Conclusions: The seven international schemes show large conceptual variations as to their focus on nursing and differences in the degree of nurse-specific outcome indicators. Hospital and nursing managers, policymakers, patients and the public need to understand the content and outcome dimensions of the schemes when making decisions or assessing hospital quality data.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Health Services Research
BMC Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
1372
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.
期刊最新文献
Exploring the experiences of resident doctors in child and adolescent psychiatry with virtual reality-based simulation training: a qualitative study. Distribution and predictors of haemophilia-related costs in the United Kingdom: analysis of the CHESS I and CHESS II burden of illness studies. Negotiating care in organizational borderlands: a grounded theory of inter-organizational collaboration in coordination of care. Equity and efficiency of health resource allocation in Sichuan Province, China. How to assess doctor managers' managerial attitude: results from an e-Delphi process.
×
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