Online from: 1988
Subject Area: Health Care Management/Healthcare
Options: To add Favourites and Table of Contents Alerts please take a Emerald profile
|Title:||Are accreditation surveys reliable?|
|Author(s):||David Greenfield, (Centre for Clinical Governance Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia), Marjorie Pawsey, (Centre for Clinical Governance Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia), Justine Naylor, (Orthopaedics Sydney South West Area Health Service, Centre for Clinical Governance Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia), Jeffrey Braithwaite, (Centre for Clinical Governance Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia)|
|Citation:||David Greenfield, Marjorie Pawsey, Justine Naylor, Jeffrey Braithwaite, (2009) "Are accreditation surveys reliable?", International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 22 Iss: 2, pp.105 - 116|
|Keywords:||Assessment, Australia, Health services, Surveys|
|Article type:||Research paper|
|DOI:||10.1108/09526860910944601 (Permanent URL)|
|Publisher:||Emerald Group Publishing Limited|
|Acknowledgements:||This study was conducted by the UNSW Centre for Clinical Governance Research and forms part of the Centre's research program into accreditation. The Centre has industry collaboration with the ACHS and Ramsay Health Care. The collaboration is the recipient of research grant LP0560737 funded by the Australian Research Council. The research team extends thanks to all ACHS staff, surveyors and representatives from health organisations across Australia who participated in the study.|
Purpose – The purpose of this article is to test whether healthcare accreditation survey processes are reliable.
Design/methodology/approach – The study uses multiple methods to document stakeholder experiences and views on accreditation survey reliability. There were 29 research activities, comprising 25 focus groups, three interviews and a survey questionnaire. In total, 193 stakeholders participated; 134 in face-to-face activities and 56 via questionnaire. All were voluntary participants. Using open-ended questioning, stakeholders were asked to reflect upon accreditation survey reliability.
Findings – Stakeholders perceived healthcare accreditation surveys to be a reliable activity. They identified six interrelated factors that simultaneously promoted and challenged reliability: the accreditation program, including organisational documentation and surveyor accreditation reports; members' relationship to the accrediting agency and survey team; accreditation agency personnel; surveyor workforce renewal; surveyor workforce management; and survey team conduct including coordinator role. The six factors realised shared expectations and conduct by accreditation stakeholders; that is, they enabled accreditation stakeholder self-governance.
Practical implications – Knowledge gained can be used to improve accreditation program reliability, credibility and ongoing self-governance.
Originality/value – The paper is a unique examination of healthcare accreditation surveys the reliability. The findings have potential application to reliability in other healthcare areas.
To purchase this item please login or register.
Complete and print this form to request this document from your librarian