Hospital accreditation: staff experiences and perceptions

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand how staff at various levels perceive and understand hospital accreditation generally and in relation to quality improvement (QI) specifically. Design/methodology/approach In a newly accredited Danish hospital, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews to capture broad ranging experiences. Medical doctors, nurses, a quality coordinator and a quality department employee participated. Interviews were audio recorded and subjected to framework analysis. Findings Staff reported that The Danish Healthcare Quality Programme affected management priorities: office time and working on documentation, which reduced time with patients and on improvement activities. Organisational structures were improved during preparation for accreditation. Staff perceived that the hospital was better prepared for new QI initiatives after accreditation; staff found disease specific requirements unnecessary. Other areas benefited from accreditation. Interviewees expected that organisational changes, owing to accreditation, would be sustained and that the QI focus would continue. Practical implications Accreditation is a critical and complete hospital review, including areas that often are neglected. Accreditation dominates hospital agendas during preparation and surveyor visits, potentially reducing patient care and other QI initiatives. Improvements are less likely to occur in areas that other QI initiatives addressed. Yet, accreditation creates organisational foundations for future QI initiatives. Originality/value The authors study contributes new insights into how hospital staff at different organisational levels perceive and understand accreditation.

What Impact Does Accreditation Have on Workplaces? A Qualitative Study to Explore the Perceptions of Healthcare Professionals About the Process of Accreditation

“…HCPs felt they were knowledgeable and engaged in their workplace because accreditation focused on overlooked training areas such as managing organizational safety and emergency codes. Accreditation standardized the delivery of services to patients by creating a shared patient-safety language among HCPs (Bogh et al, 2018). Although the preparation phase extended from six months to three years, the majority of HCPs felt the pressure of achieving accreditation one month before the arrival of the inspectors.…”

“…156-165). Moreover, recent studies have examined the effects of workload linked to the accreditation process on reduced care of patients (Ho et al, 2014;Bogh et al, 2018). Bogh et al (2018) described how doctors and nurses were distracted by paperwork that influenced their time with patients.…”

Well-prepared outpatient visits satisfy patient and physican

“…The increasing number of complex patients, multidisciplinary treatments and mandatory registrations causes an increased administrative burden on medical professionals 1. Recent research has shown that for each hour of direct patient care, a physician spends 2 hours on documentation in the electronic patient records (EPRs) 2–5.…”

Accreditation as a management tool: a national survey of hospital managers’ perceptions and use of a mandatory accreditation program in Denmark

“…The attitudes and perceptions of staff working within healthcare organizations are a key influence on the implementation of accreditation programs [8][9][10][11]. Previous research found that some staff value accreditation for creating organizational foundations for future quality improvement initiatives, [12] and for enhancing quality and organizational performance, while others perceived it as not worthwhile for patient care, and as bureaucratic and time-consuming [7,11]. Such attitudes also vary by the type of staff member (e.g., doctors, nurses, managers), accreditation programs, and the context in which it is implemented [11].…”