State Health Agencies' Perceptions of the Benefits of Accreditation

Abstract

The national voluntary accreditation program serves to encourage health agencies to seek departmental accreditation as a mechanism for continuous quality improvement. This study utilizes data from the 2016 Association of State and Territorial Health Officials Profile Survey to examine the perceived benefits of accreditation among state health agencies. Respondents answered questions on topics such as agency structure, workforce, and quality improvement activities. Frequencies and cross tabulations were conducted using IBM SPSS (version 21) statistical software. Results indicate that among accredited agencies, the most commonly endorsed benefits of accreditation include stimulating quality and performance improvement opportunities (95%), strengthening the culture of quality improvement (90%), and stimulating greater collaboration across departments/units within the agency (90%). Policy and practice implications, such as how these data can be used to promote accreditation within health agencies, as well as how accreditation strengthens governmental public health systems, are also discussed.

Public Health Accreditation of Army Preventive Medicine Departments: Improving Military Medical Treatment Facility Practice to Impact Force Readiness

“…Ultimately, national public health accreditation is purported to strengthen the delivery of public health services and programs, improve understanding of and responsiveness to community needs and assets, increase consistency in practice, support more efficient and effective use of resources, and improve overall population health outcomes. 9 Although the impact of this accreditation is still unfolding, state and local (civilian) health departments report several specific benefits that they’ve experienced already as a result of achieving accreditation including: Enable identification of department strengths and weaknesses 4 to address gapsDocument capacity to deliver core public health functions 4 Improve cross-organizational (i.e., within organization) collaboration 10 Promote transparency and accountability within and outside of the department 3 Stimulate quality and performance improvement 4,10,11 Improve communication 4 Strengthen the department’s culture of quality improve-ment 4,10,11 …”

Impact of Accreditation on Health Department Financial Resources

“…8,12 Benefits that may be associated with accreditation in the area of workforce development include increased staff training and knowledge specific to QI 9 ; greater staff awareness of public health topics, including QI, evidence-based public health practice, and multisectoral collaboration 13 ; and increased efforts to identify and address training and workforce development deficiencies. 14 Another study of a limited number of health departments pursuing accreditation found that none of the agencies had plans for workforce development, QI, or performance management before initiating accreditation activities. 15 In addition to these outcomes, anticipated improvements in financial resources and expanded funding opportunities have been cited as motivators for pursuing and anticipated benefits of accreditation.…”

“…15 In addition to these outcomes, anticipated improvements in financial resources and expanded funding opportunities have been cited as motivators for pursuing and anticipated benefits of accreditation. 14,16,17 Overall, few studies have assessed how accreditation has affected the financial status of health departments, including new or increased funding. Preliminary accreditation outcomes data indicate that approximately half of accredited health departments, at the time they were accredited for 1 year, reported that accreditation improved their health departments' competitiveness for funding 4,8 and utilization of resources.…”

The Relationship Between Health Department Accreditation and Workforce Satisfaction, Retention, and Training Needs

“…More recent studies have attempted to ascertain the value of national voluntary accreditation 10–18. For the most part, these studies relied on self-reported perspectives of individuals closely involved in the accreditation process 12–14. They typically reported that it adds value and provides a benefit to their HDs.…”

“…They typically reported that it adds value and provides a benefit to their HDs. However, the majority of these studies have been limited to LHDs13–17 and/or are limited by social desirability bias 12–14,18. New contributions, such as the recent study by Ye and colleagues,15 address some concerns about social desirability bias by assessing what accreditation means to the workforce as a whole, rather than just to those closely involved.…”