Why accreditation is important in healthcare

Accreditation systems across the continuum of HPE typically have these components, although with great variation. For each of these elements, it should be noted that there is no clear evidence or consensus as to which features are essential for accreditation to contribute to quality outcomes.

However, the power of these core elements is in their promise as a kind of lingua franca for accreditation system design and comparison. Summative vs. QA vs. The first overarching theme deals with the tension between the QA and CQI functions of accreditation systems. This is a perennial debate; one that continues to this day. While both perspectives on the role of accreditation involve the comparison of educational quality data to a standard, the CQI view goes beyond making a summative judgment based on the identified gaps.

CQI accreditation attempts to provide detailed information on how to enhance a program or institution, perhaps even coaching on how to achieve a higher level of quality. This dichotomy is closely related to another debate as to whether accreditation systems should be fundamentally formative information provided for the express purpose of improvement of the target or summative judgment made on the merit or status of a target.

IHPAOC members identified that accreditation designers should explicitly identify and communicate the goals of the process, as well as how those goals relate to QA vs. CQI [ 45 ]. Continuous vs.

Episodic sampling tended to be higher stakes and to involve expensive periodic information gathering; however, it allowed low periods between accreditation activities. In some ways, episodic reviews could be less disruptive to educational work. On the other hand, the argument for continuous elements in accreditation processes is that they allow accreditors to monitor changes in HPE over time, intervene early to ensure adherence or improvement, and ensure that conversations about quality and good practices are always present in programs, institutions, and systems.

Onsite visits vs. Another issue—one related to variations in accreditation practices—relates to the methodology of data gathering. Document reviews are efficient ways to gather information on an educational target, comparing what is described to accreditation standards.

Onsite reviews have the obvious advantages of first-hand information, contact with multiple participants, and access to richer sources of information [ 45 ].

Peer review vs. Who should conduct accreditation reviews? IHPAOC members identified a debate between hired experts who are dedicated to accreditation full time and selected peer reviewers who provide authentic perspectives reflective of their own experiences. With no evidence to guide the choice, Summit participants concluded that the decision should be based on philosophy and practicality.

For example: Is authenticity or expertise more important? What is the availability of experts vs. Is cross-fertilization of innovation important [ 46 , 47 ]? Outcomes vs. The final tension occurring in debates among accreditors worldwide is related to how much to weight standards to process e. Process measures were characterized as surrogates for the desired outcome in some cases, and they are often easier to measure than outcome measures, which can be complex, temporally distant, and confounded.

Summit participants identified a distinct shift to greater, but not exclusive, use of outcome measures for accreditation standards as more data become available [ 48 ]. HPE is often cited as an essential component of the health care system of any nation.

However, there is evidence that HPE suffers from poor outcomes and unacceptable variation in graduate abilities. There is also evidence of patient harm. Accreditation has been identified as a solution to these challenges facing the health professions, one that can promote both adherence to minimum standards and continuous improvement.

Accreditation is essential to the vitality of a profession and ensures graduates are safely and effectively prepared for contemporary practice [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 7 , 9 , 15 , 18 , 21 , 49 ]. In doing so, we identified early evidence to guide the design and practice of an accreditation enterprise. Accreditation is limited by lack of a large evidence base and challenged by several philosophical and practical debates and controversies, as well as the lack of a common framework of core elements.

This global network has now proposed direction for these core elements and the issues facing HPE accreditation as it continues to evolve. There is an urgent need to build on this work to evaluate and innovate on HPE accreditation to enhance training and, thereby, enhance care. HPE accreditation plays a fundamental role in the health workforce for the nations of the world. We report the findings of an international consortium on HPE accreditation that educators around the world can build upon to advance the quality of HPE.

By adopting a common definition and identifying recurring issues and the taxonomy of elements, we can begin to compare, learn from, and build upon the diversity of HPE accreditation systems worldwide. Horton R. A new epoch for health professions education. Article Google Scholar. World Health Organization. Transforming and scaling up health professional education and training: policy brief n accreditation of institutions for health professional education. Geneva: WHO; Google Scholar. American Medical Association.

History of accreditation of medical education programs. Johnson V. The historical development of accreditation in medical education. Flexner A. Medical education in the unites states and Canada. The Edinburgh declaration.

Med Educ. Frenk J, et al. Heath professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen heath systems in an interdependent world. Frank JR, et al. Competence-based medical education: theory to practice. Med Teach. The next GME accreditation system—rationale and benefits.

N Engl J Med. About CanERA. Asch DA, et al. How do you deliver a good obstetrician? Outcome based evaluation of medical education. Acad Med. Levitt K, et al.

Predictors of normal coronary arteries at coronary angiography. Am Heart J. Wijeysundera H. C et al. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. Wenghofer EF, et al. Factors affecting physician performance: implications for performance improvement and governance.

Health Policy. Exploring the role of accreditation in enhancing quality and innovation in health professions education: proceedings of a workshop. Tyrer S, Heyman B. Sampling in epidemiological research. BJPscyh Bull. World Federation for Medical Education. Accessed 4 April International Association of Medical Regulatory Authorities. Statement: accreditation of medical education programs.

Euless, TX: The Association; Available from: www. Maniate JM. Redesigning a resident program evaluation to strengthen the Canadian residency education accreditation system.

Use of an institutional template for annual program evaluation and improvement: benefits for program participation and performance. J Grad Med Educ. Boelen C, Woollard B. Social accountability and accreditation: a new frontier for educational institutions. Boulet J, van Zanten M. Ensuring high-quality patient care: the role of accreditation, licensure, specialty certification and revalidation in medicine.

Accreditation of undergraduate medical training programs: practices in nine developing countries as compared with the United States. What benefits did you get from participating in it?

They found that when staff see the positive outcomes of a well-run accreditation process, they want to continue making improvements together. Accreditation can help you get there. Safer care means fewer risks and adverse events. Patient safety interventions, such as the ones required to achieve accreditation, can save more money in avoided adverse events than they cost. In , Williams et al. They studied a wide range of ratings including health inspections, staffing, inspection deficiencies, fines, and quality measures.

They found that the accredited facilities had a better performance on these measures, indicating that the accredited facilities exposed residents to fewer immediate risks. Other financial benefits of accreditation that have been cited are improved operational efficiency and reduced liability cases. Do you want to become accredited? Since quality can be somewhat subjective and relate to patient outcome, there are a number of ways to define quality.

Iizuka, Munechika. Accreditation Within healthcare, it is very important that patients and staff feel that they are in a safe, comfortable and clean environment. The quality of care is continuing to improve and always will and this is because it is mandatory for the government. There are always rules and regulations to follow within an organization.

Within healthcare they use accreditation , and it is important to understand what it is, how it is different from licensure, the history of it within the United States, and current and future challenges with it. These standards measure the quality of care within the healthcare organization. Accreditation is so important because it demonstrates commitment to quality, creates a distinction among the competition, and drives continuous improvement ACHC, Healthcare is always trying to improve quality of care and to set standards it makes it possible.

Get Access. Read More. Hospital Accreditation : A Self Assessment Process Words 34 Pages Hospital Accreditation is a self-assessment process carried out by health care bodies to determine the level of performance by the set standards. Joint Commission Accreditation Words 5 Pages Commission is an independent not for profit group that provides as the accreditation issuer within the United States.

The National Committee For Quality Assurance Words 6 Pages that was formed in with the sole purpose of improving the quality of healthcare.