A mechanism for revising accreditation standards: A study of the process, resources required and evaluation outcomes

Greenfield, D; Civil, M; Donnison, A; Hogden, A; Hinchcliff, R; Westbrook, J; Braithwaite, J

A mechanism for revising accreditation standards: A study of the process, resources required and evaluation outcomes

Greenfield, D Civil, M Donnison, A Hogden, A Hinchcliff, R

Westbrook, J Braithwaite, J

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: BMC Health Services Research, 2014, 14
Issue Date:: 2014-01-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published VersionAdobe PDF (257.35 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Greenfield, D	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Civil, M	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Donnison, A	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Hogden, A	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Hinchcliff, R https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9920-4211	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Westbrook, J	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Braithwaite, J	en_US
dc.date.available	2014-10-27	en_US
dc.date.issued	2014-01-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	BMC Health Services Research, 2014, 14	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/118861
dc.description.abstract	© 2014 Greenfield et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. Background: The study objective was to identify and describe the process, resources and expertise required for the revision of accreditation standards, and report outcomes arising from such activities. Methods: Secondary document analysis of materials from an accreditation standards development agency. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners' (RACGP) documents, minutes and reports related to the revision of the accreditation standards were examined. Results: The RACGP revision of the accreditation standards was conducted over a 12 month period and comprised six phases with multiple tasks, including: review methodology planning; review of the evidence base and each standard; new material development; constructing field trial methodology; drafting, trialling and refining new standards; and production of new standards. Over 100 individuals participated, with an additional 30 providing periodic input and feedback. Participants were drawn from healthcare professional associations, primary healthcare services, accreditation agencies, government agencies and public health organisations. Their expertise spanned: project management; standards development and writing; primary healthcare practice; quality and safety improvement methodologies; accreditation implementation and surveying; and research. The review and development process was shaped by five issues: project expectations; resource and time requirements; a collaborative approach; stakeholder engagement; and the product produced. The RACGP evaluation was that participants were positive about their experience, the standards produced and considered them relevant for the sector. Conclusions: The revision of accreditation standards requires considerable resources and expertise, drawn from a broad range of stakeholders. Collaborative, inclusive processes that engage key stakeholders helps promote greater industry acceptance of the standards.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	BMC Health Services Research	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1186/s12913-014-0571-8	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Health Policy & Services	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Humans	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Cooperative Behavior	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Government Agencies	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Accreditation	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	State Medicine	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Primary Health Care	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Australia	en_US
dc.title	A mechanism for revising accreditation standards: A study of the process, resources required and evaluation outcomes	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	14	en_US
utslib.for	1117 Public Health and Health Services	en_US
utslib.for	0807 Library and Information Studies	en_US
utslib.for	1110 Nursing	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	14	en_US

Abstract:

© 2014 Greenfield et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. Background: The study objective was to identify and describe the process, resources and expertise required for the revision of accreditation standards, and report outcomes arising from such activities. Methods: Secondary document analysis of materials from an accreditation standards development agency. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners' (RACGP) documents, minutes and reports related to the revision of the accreditation standards were examined. Results: The RACGP revision of the accreditation standards was conducted over a 12 month period and comprised six phases with multiple tasks, including: review methodology planning; review of the evidence base and each standard; new material development; constructing field trial methodology; drafting, trialling and refining new standards; and production of new standards. Over 100 individuals participated, with an additional 30 providing periodic input and feedback. Participants were drawn from healthcare professional associations, primary healthcare services, accreditation agencies, government agencies and public health organisations. Their expertise spanned: project management; standards development and writing; primary healthcare practice; quality and safety improvement methodologies; accreditation implementation and surveying; and research. The review and development process was shaped by five issues: project expectations; resource and time requirements; a collaborative approach; stakeholder engagement; and the product produced. The RACGP evaluation was that participants were positive about their experience, the standards produced and considered them relevant for the sector. Conclusions: The revision of accreditation standards requires considerable resources and expertise, drawn from a broad range of stakeholders. Collaborative, inclusive processes that engage key stakeholders helps promote greater industry acceptance of the standards.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/118861