The impact of hospital accreditation on clinical documentation compliance: a life cycle explanation using interrupted time series analysis

Abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate whether accredited hospitals maintain quality and patient safety standards over the accreditation cycle by testing a life cycle explanation of accreditation on quality measures. Four distinct phases of the accreditation life cycle were defined based on the Joint Commission International process. Predictions concerning the time series trend of compliance during each phase were specified and tested.DesignInterrupted time series (ITS) regression analysis of 23 quality and accreditation compliance measures.SettingA 150-bed multispecialty hospital in Abu Dhabi, UAE.ParticipantsEach month (over 48 months) a simple random sample of 24% of patient records was audited, resulting in 276 000 observations collected from 12 000 patient records, drawn from a population of 50 000.Intervention(s)The impact of hospital accreditation on the 23 quality measures was observed for 48 months, 1 year preaccreditation (2009) and 3-year postaccreditation (2010–2012).Main outcome measure(s)The Life Cycle Model was evaluated by aggregating the data for 23 quality measures to produce a composite score (YC) and fitting an ITS regression equation to the unweighted monthly mean of the series.ResultsThe four phases of the life cycle are as follows: the initiation phase, the presurvey phase, the postaccreditation slump phase and the stagnation phase. The Life Cycle Model explains 87% of the variation in quality compliance measures (R2=0.87). The ITS model not only contains three significant variables (β1, β2 and β3) (p≤0.001), but also the size of the coefficients indicates that the effects of these variables are substantial (β1=2.19, β2=−3.95 (95% CI −6.39 to −1.51) and β3=−2.16 (95% CI −2.52 to −1.80).ConclusionsAlthough there was a reduction in compliance immediately after the accreditation survey, the lack of subsequent fading in quality performance should be a reassurance to researchers, managers, clinicians and accreditors.

The impact of Saudi hospital accreditation on quality of care: a mixed methods study

“…This reaction by the hospitals takes place after the on-site survey, seemingly because of the lack of a comprehensive unannounced visit programme by the surveyors (Aryankhesal and Sheldon 2010). This point is supported by Devkaran and O'Farrell (2014), who reported that mandatory accreditation shifts the goal to survey compliance instead of quality improvement, does not embed the standards into practice and does not sustain performance. Another reason to reject the requirements may be because of power dynamics, as the results suggest that native Saudis were less motivated to change.…”

Quality of nursing documentation before and after the Hospital Accreditation in a university hospital

“…However, a study using interrupted time series analysis showed that the quality performance decreased after the evaluative stage of accreditation 17 . Thus, management mechanisms with a view to assuring the quality and safety of care should be implemented on a permanent basis and assessed in order to strengthen the safety culture in the institution and evidenced in the records to maintain the quality seal of the JCI.…”

Medical Errors Management Before and After Implementation of Accreditation in Hospital

“…Development of hospital accreditation could increase the public awareness of medical errors and existing gaps in the development of patient safety in the health care system (17). Based on studies have been conducted to evaluate the benefits of accreditation, hospital accreditation can improve the quality and performance of IJHS 2014; 2(2): 61 organizations (18).…”