BACKGROUND: Hospital accreditation is an established quality improvement intervention. Despite a growing body of research, the evidence of effect remains contested. This umbrella review synthesises reviews that examine the impacts of hospital accreditation with regard to health care quality, highlighting research trends and knowledge gaps.
METHODS: Terms specific to the Population: 'hospital', and the Intervention: 'accreditation' were used to search seven databases: CINAHL (via EBSCOhost), Embase, Medline (via EBSCOhost), PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the JBI EBP Database (via Ovid). 2545 references were exported to Endnote. After completing a systematic screening process and chain-referencing, 33 reviews were included. Following quality assessment and data extraction, key findings were thematically grouped into the seven health care quality dimensions.
RESULTS: Hospital accreditation has a range of associations with health system and organisational outcomes. Effectiveness, efficiency, patient-centredness and safety were the most researched quality dimensions. Access, equity, and timeliness were examined in only three reviews. Barriers to robust original studies were reported to have impeded conclusive evidence. The body of research was largely atheoretical, incapable of precisely explaining how or why hospital accreditation may actually influence quality improvement.
CONCLUSION: The impact of hospital accreditation remains poorly understood. Future research should control for all possible variables. Research and accreditation program development should integrate concepts of implementation and behavioural science to investigate the mechanisms through which hospital accreditation may enable quality improvement.
BACKGROUND: Governance arrangements include changes in rules or processes that determine authority and accountability for health policies, organisations, commercial products and health professionals, as well as the involvement of stakeholders in decision-making. Changes in governance arrangements can affect health and related goals in numerous ways, generally through changes in authority, accountability, openness, participation and coherence. A broad overview of the findings of systematic reviews can help policymakers, their technical support staff and other stakeholders to identify strategies for addressing problems and improving the governance of their health systems.
OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of governance arrangements for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on governance arrangements and informing refinements of the framework for governance arrangements outlined in the overview.
METHODS: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of governance arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use (health expenditures, healthcare provider costs, out-of-pocket payments, cost-effectiveness), healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty, employment) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations that were important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings of the review. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence) and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 21 of them in this overview (19 primary reviews and 2 supplementary reviews). We focus here on the results of the 19 primary reviews, one of which had important methodological limitations. The other 18 were reliable (with only minor limitations).We grouped the governance arrangements addressed in the reviews into five categories: authority and accountability for health policies (three reviews); authority and accountability for organisations (two reviews); authority and accountability for commercial products (three reviews); authority and accountability for health professionals (seven reviews); and stakeholder involvement (four reviews).Overall, we found desirable effects for the following interventions on at least one outcome, with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects. Decision-making about what is covered by health insurance- Placing restrictions on the medicines reimbursed by health insurance systems probably decreases the use of and spending on these medicines (moderate-certainty evidence). Stakeholder participation in policy and organisational decisions- Participatory learning and action groups for women probably improve newborn survival (moderate-certainty evidence).- Consumer involvement in preparing patient information probably improves the quality of the information and patient knowledge (moderate-certainty evidence). Disclosing performance information to patients and the public- Disclosing performance data on hospital quality to the public probably encourages hospitals to implement quality improvement activities (moderate-certainty evidence).- Disclosing performance data on individual healthcare providers to the public probably leads people to select providers that have better quality ratings (moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Investigators have evaluated a wide range of governance arrangements that are relevant for low-income countries using sound systematic review methods. These strategies have been targeted at different levels in health systems, and studies have assessed a range of outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence shows desirable effects (with no undesirable effects) for some interventions. However, there are important gaps in the availability of systematic reviews and primary studies for the all of the main categories of governance arrangements.
KEY MESSAGES: - There is now extensive evidence demonstrating that there is a gap between the health care that patients receive and the practice that is recommended. In both primary and secondary care there are unwarranted variations in practice and in resulting outcomes that cannot be explained by the characteristics of patients.
- While it is difficult to find examples of measures for addressing this issue from all 53 countries of the World Health Organization’s European Region, there are interventions that can be identified in the 27 Member States of the European Union. However, the nature of these measures and the extent to which they are implemented vary considerably.
- Audit and feedback defined as “any summary of clinical performance of health care over a specified period of time aimed at providing information to health professionals to allow them to assess and adjust their performance” is an overarching term used to describe some of the measures that are used to improve professional practice.
- Audit and feedback can be used in all health care settings, involving all health professionals, either as individual professions or in multiprofessional teams.
- In practical terms, health professionals can receive feedback on their performance based on data derived from their routine practice. Health professionals involved in audit and feedback may work either in a team or individually and in primary, secondary or tertiary care.
- While it seems intuitive that health care professionals would be prompted to modify their clinical practice if receiving feedback that it was inconsistent with that of their peers or accepted guidelines, this is in fact not always the case.
- The available evidence suggests that audit and feedback may be effective in improving professional practice but that the effects are generally small to moderate. Nonetheless, depending on the context, such small effects, particularly if shown to be cost-effective, may still be regarded as worthwhile.
- The benefits of audit and feedback measures are most likely to occur where existing practice is furthest away from what is desired, and when feedback is more intensive.
- Even on the basis of the best evidence available, no strong recommendations can be given regarding the best way to introduce audit and feedback into routine practice. However, decisions about if, and how, this approach can Policy summary be used to improve professional practice must be guided by pragmatism and the consideration of local circumstances. The following scenarios, for example, might indicate suitability for such an approach: the known (or anticipated) level of initial adherence to guidelines or desired practice is low; it is feasible to conduct an audit and the associated costs of collecting the data are low; routinely collected data are reliable and appropriate for use in an audit; and small to moderate improvements in quality would be worthwhile.
- The cost of audit and feedback is highly variable and is determined by local conditions, including the availability of reliable routinely collected data and personnel costs.
- The impact of audit and feedback, with or without additional interventions, should be monitored routinely by auditing practice after the intervention.
There is now a plethora of different quality improvement strategies (QIS) for optimizing health care, some clinician/patient driven, others manager/policy-maker driven. Which of these are most effective remains unclear despite expressed concerns about potential for QIS-related patient harm and wasting of resources. The objective of this study was to review published literature assessing the relative effectiveness of different QIS. Data sources comprising PubMed Clinical Queries, Cochrane Library and its Effective Practice and Organization of Care database, and HealthStar were searched for studies of QIS between January 1985 and February 2008 using search terms based on an a priori QIS classification suggested by experts. Systematic reviews of controlled trials were selected in determining effect sizes for specific QIS, which were compared as a narrative meta-review. Clinician/patient driven QIS were associated with stronger evidence of efficacy and larger effect sizes than manager/policy-maker driven QIS. The most effective strategies (>10% absolute increase in appropriate care or equivalent measure) included clinician-directed audit and feedback cycles, clinical decision support systems, specialty outreach programmes, chronic disease management programmes, continuing professional education based on interactive small-group case discussions, and patient-mediated clinician reminders. Pay-for-performance schemes directed to clinician groups and organizational process redesign were modestly effective. Other manager/policy-maker driven QIS including continuous quality improvement programmes, risk and safety management systems, public scorecards and performance reports, external accreditation, and clinical governance arrangements have not been adequately evaluated with regard to effectiveness. QIS are heterogeneous and methodological flaws in much of the evaluative literature limit validity and generalizability of results. Based on current best available evidence, clinician/patient driven QIS appear to be more effective than manager/policy-maker driven QIS although the latter have, in many instances, attracted insufficient robust evaluations to accurately determine their comparative effectiveness.
Hospital accreditation is an established quality improvement intervention. Despite a growing body of research, the evidence of effect remains contested. This umbrella review synthesises reviews that examine the impacts of hospital accreditation with regard to health care quality, highlighting research trends and knowledge gaps.
METHODS:
Terms specific to the Population: 'hospital', and the Intervention: 'accreditation' were used to search seven databases: CINAHL (via EBSCOhost), Embase, Medline (via EBSCOhost), PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the JBI EBP Database (via Ovid). 2545 references were exported to Endnote. After completing a systematic screening process and chain-referencing, 33 reviews were included. Following quality assessment and data extraction, key findings were thematically grouped into the seven health care quality dimensions.
RESULTS:
Hospital accreditation has a range of associations with health system and organisational outcomes. Effectiveness, efficiency, patient-centredness and safety were the most researched quality dimensions. Access, equity, and timeliness were examined in only three reviews. Barriers to robust original studies were reported to have impeded conclusive evidence. The body of research was largely atheoretical, incapable of precisely explaining how or why hospital accreditation may actually influence quality improvement.
CONCLUSION:
The impact of hospital accreditation remains poorly understood. Future research should control for all possible variables. Research and accreditation program development should integrate concepts of implementation and behavioural science to investigate the mechanisms through which hospital accreditation may enable quality improvement.
