A hybrid health service accreditation program model incorporating mandated standards and continuous improvement: interview study of multiple stakeholders in Australian health care.

The study aim was to investigate the understandings and concerns of stakeholders regarding the evolution of health service accreditation programs in Australia. Stakeholder representatives from programs in the primary, acute and aged care sectors participated in semi-structured interviews. Across 2011-12 there were 47 group and individual interviews involving 258 participants. Interviews lasted, on average, 1 h, and were digitally recorded and transcribed. Transcriptions were analysed using textual referencing software. Four significant issues were considered to have directed the evolution of accreditation programs: altering underlying program philosophies; shifting of program content focus and details; different surveying expectations and experiences and the influence of external contextual factors upon accreditation programs. Three accreditation program models were noted by participants: regulatory compliance; continuous quality improvement and a hybrid model, incorporating elements of these two. Respondents noted the compatibility or incommensurability of the first two models. Participation in a program was reportedly experienced as ranging on a survey continuum from "malicious compliance" to "performance audits" to "quality improvement journeys". Wider contextual factors, in particular, political and community expectations, and associated media reporting, were considered significant influences on the operation and evolution of programs. A hybrid accreditation model was noted to have evolved. The hybrid model promotes minimum standards and continuous quality improvement, through examining the structure and processes of organisations and the outcomes of care. The hybrid model appears to be directing organisational and professional attention to enhance their safety cultures. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Analysing 'big picture' policy reform mechanisms: the Australian health service safety and quality accreditation scheme.

BACKGROUND: Agencies promoting national health-care accreditation reform to improve the quality of care and safety of patients are largely working without specific blueprints that can increase the likelihood of success. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the development and implementation of the Australian Health Service Safety and Quality Accreditation Scheme and National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards (the Scheme), their expected benefits, and challenges and facilitators to implementation. METHODS: A multimethod study was conducted using document analysis, observation and interviews. Data sources were eight government reports, 25 h of observation and 34 interviews with 197 diverse stakeholders. RESULTS: Development of the Scheme was achieved through extensive consultation conducted over a prolonged period, that is, from 2000 onwards. Participants, prior to implementation, believed the Scheme would produce benefits at multiple levels of the health system. The Scheme offered a national framework to promote patient-centred care, allowing organizations to engage and coordinate professionals' quality improvement activities. Significant challenges are apparent, including developing and maintaining stakeholder understanding of the Scheme's requirements. Risks must also be addressed. The standardized application of, and reliable assessment against, the standards must be achieved to maintain credibility with the Scheme. Government employment of effective stakeholder engagement strategies, such as structured consultation processes, was viewed as necessary for successful, sustainable implementation. CONCLUSION: The Australian experience demonstrates that national accreditation reform can engender widespread stakeholder support, but implementation challenges must be overcome. In particular, the fundamental role of continued stakeholder engagement increases the likelihood that such reforms are taken up and spread across health systems.

Stakeholder perspectives on implementing accreditation programs: a qualitative study of enabling factors.

BACKGROUND: Accreditation programs are complex, system-wide quality and safety interventions. Despite their international popularity, evidence of their effectiveness is weak and contradictory. This may be due to variable implementation in different contexts. However, there is limited research that informs implementation strategies. We aimed to advance knowledge in this area by identifying factors that enable effective implementation of accreditation programs across different healthcare settings. METHODS: We conducted 39 focus groups and eight interviews between 2011 and 2012, involving 258 diverse healthcare stakeholders from every Australian State and Territory. Interviews were semi-structured and focused on the aims, implementation and consequences of three prominent accreditation programs in the aged, primary and acute care sectors. Data were thematically analysed to distil and categorise facilitators of effective implementation. RESULTS: Four factors were identified as critical enablers of effective implementation: the accreditation program is collaborative, valid and uses relevant standards; accreditation is favourably received by health professionals; healthcare organisations are capable of embracing accreditation; and accreditation is appropriately aligned with other regulatory initiatives and supported by relevant incentives. CONCLUSIONS: Strategic implementation of accreditation programs should target the four factors emerging from this study, which may increase the likelihood of accreditation being implemented successfully.

The standard of healthcare accreditation standards: a review of empirical research underpinning their development and impact.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare accreditation standards are advocated as an important means of improving clinical practice and organisational performance. Standard development agencies have documented methodologies to promote open, transparent, inclusive development processes where standards are developed by members. They assert that their methodologies are effective and efficient at producing standards appropriate for the health industry. However, the evidence to support these claims requires scrutiny. The study's purpose was to examine the empirical research that grounds the development methods and application of healthcare accreditation standards. METHODS: A multi-method strategy was employed over the period March 2010 to August 2011. Five academic health research databases (Medline, Psych INFO, Embase, Social work abstracts, and CINAHL) were interrogated, the websites of 36 agencies associated with the study topic were investigated, and a snowball search was undertaken. Search criteria included accreditation research studies, in English, addressing standards and their impact. Searching in stage 1 initially selected 9386 abstracts. In stage 2, this selection was refined against the inclusion criteria; empirical studies (n = 2111) were identified and refined to a selection of 140 papers with the exclusion of clinical or biomedical and commentary pieces. These were independently reviewed by two researchers and reduced to 13 articles that met the study criteria. RESULTS: The 13 articles were analysed according to four categories: overall findings; standards development; implementation issues; and impact of standards. Studies have only occurred in the acute care setting, predominately in 2003 (n = 5) and 2009 (n = 4), and in the United States (n = 8). A multidisciplinary focus (n = 9) and mixed method approach (n = 11) are common characteristics. Three interventional studies were identified, with the remaining 10 studies having research designs to investigate clinical or organisational impacts. No study directly examined standards development or other issues associated with their progression. Only one study noted implementation issues, identifying several enablers and barriers. Standards were reported to improve organisational efficiency and staff circumstances. However, the impact on clinical quality was mixed, with both improvements and a lack of measurable effects recorded. CONCLUSION: Standards are ubiquitous within healthcare and are generally considered to be an important means by which to improve clinical practice and organisational performance. However, there is a lack of robust empirical evidence examining the development, writing, implementation and impacts of healthcare accreditation standards.

An empirical test of accreditation patient journey surveys: randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of utilizing the patient journey survey (PJS) method in healthcare accreditation processes. DESIGN: Randomized trial of the PJS method in parallel with the current accreditation survey (CAS) method of the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS). SETTING: Acute healthcare organizations in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen organizations, 28 organizational staff, nine surveyors and 38 patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The results of each surveying method were compared. Participants provided feedback, via 18 interviews and 40 questionnaire surveys, about the benefits and disadvantages of a PJS compared to a CAS. RESULTS: The PJS method is not as comprehensive as the CAS method for accreditation assessment. In matched assessments the majority of items were rated lower by the PJS method than by the CAS. PJSs were shown to be appropriate for assessing mandatory clinical criteria, but were less effective for assessing corporate and support criteria. The two methods diverged in their final assessments of which organizations met the accreditation threshold. Participants endorsed the use of PJSs within accreditation processes. CONCLUSIONS: The PJS methodology complements but is not a substitute for existing accreditation methods. There is significant stakeholder support for the inclusion of the PJS method within the current accreditation programme.

An empirical test of short notice surveys in two accreditation programmes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate short notice surveys in accreditation programmes. DESIGN: Two trials using short notice surveys were conducted independently: a study of 20 healthcare organizations with the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) and a study of 7 general practices with the Australian General Practice Accreditation Limited (AGPAL). Participating organizations volunteered. ACHS and AGPAL selected 17 and 13 surveyors, respectively, and provided training for them on short notice surveys. METHODS: Each agency's short notice surveys were an abbreviated version of their current advanced notification surveys. Short notice surveys assessed accreditation programme criteria or indicators that corresponded to the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care's priority issues. Fifteen (out of 45) ACHS criteria and 48 (out of 174) AGPAL indicators that aligned to the Commission's criteria were evaluated. Participating organizations were given 2 days notice prior to the short notice surveys. Ratings from the short notice surveys were compared with those from the most recent advanced notification surveys, and statistical tests were performed to detect differences and potential confounding factors. Surveyors and organizational staff completed a post-survey feedback questionnaire which was analysed thematically and by inferential statistics. RESULTS: The short notice survey approach overall produced ratings congruent with the advanced notification survey for both accreditation programmes. However, for both programmes short notice surveys assessed that more organizations would not reach the accreditation threshold as compared with the previous survey. Organizations in both programmes were judged to have achieved less successful performance against clinical standards by the short notice survey than the advanced notification survey. There was support from surveyors and organizational staff for short notice survey to be adopted. However, there were mixed views about the impact of short notice surveys and whether they validated trial participants' continuous improvement efforts. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that short notice surveys are more critical in their assessment of clinical than administrative or corporate items. Short notice surveys, while broadly comparable with existing advanced notification survey practice, produced different accreditation outcomes for a significant proportion of the study organizations. The overall value and worth of short notice surveys remains to be proved.

What motivates professionals to engage in the accreditation of healthcare organizations?

OBJECTIVE: Motivated staff are needed to improve quality and safety in healthcare organizations. Stimulating and engaging staff to participate in accreditation processes is a considerable challenge. The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of health executives, managers and frontline clinicians who participated in organizational accreditation processes: what motivated them to engage, and what benefits accrued? DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS: The setting was a large public teaching hospital undergoing a planned review of its accreditation status. A research protocol was employed to conduct semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 30 staff with varied organizational roles, from different professions, to discuss their involvement in accreditation. Thematic analysis of the data was undertaken. RESULTS: The analysis identified three categories, each with sub-themes: accreditation response (reactions to accreditation and the value of surveys); survey issues (participation in the survey, learning through interactions and constraints) and documentation issues (self-assessment report, survey report and recommendations). Participants' occupational role focuses their attention to prioritize aspects of the accreditation process. Their motivations to participate and the benefits that accrue to them can be positively self-reinforcing. Participants have a desire to engage collaboratively with colleagues to learn and validate their efforts to improve. CONCLUSION: Participation in the accreditation process promoted a quality and safety culture that crossed organizational boundaries. The insights into worker motivation can be applied to engage staff to promote learning, overcome organizational boundaries and improve services. The findings can be applied to enhance involvement with accreditation and, more broadly, to other quality and safety activities.

Are accreditation surveys reliable?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to test whether healthcare accreditation survey processes are reliable. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The study uses multiple methods to document stakeholder experiences and views on accreditation survey reliability. There were 29 research activities, comprising 25 focus groups, three interviews and a survey questionnaire. In total, 193 stakeholders participated; 134 in face-to-face activities and 56 via questionnaire. All were voluntary participants. Using open-ended questioning, stakeholders were asked to reflect upon accreditation survey reliability. FINDINGS: Stakeholders perceived healthcare accreditation surveys to be a reliable activity. They identified six interrelated factors that simultaneously promoted and challenged reliability: the accreditation program, including organisational documentation and surveyor accreditation reports; members' relationship to the accrediting agency and survey team; accreditation agency personnel; surveyor workforce renewal; surveyor workforce management; and survey team conduct including coordinator role. The six factors realised shared expectations and conduct by accreditation stakeholders; that is, they enabled accreditation stakeholder self-governance. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Knowledge gained can be used to improve accreditation program reliability, credibility and ongoing self-governance. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The paper is a unique examination of healthcare accreditation surveys the reliability. The findings have potential application to reliability in other healthcare areas.

Distributed leadership to mobilise capacity for accreditation research.

PURPOSE: Inquiries into healthcare organisations have highlighted organisational or system failure, attributed to poor responses to early warning signs. One response, and challenge, is for professionals and academics to build capacity for quality and safety research to provide evidence for improved systems. However, such collaborations and capacity building do not occur easily as there are many stakeholders. Leadership is necessary to unite differences into a common goal. The lessons learned and principles arising from the experience of providing distributed leadership to mobilise capacity for quality and safety research when researching health care accreditation in Australia are presented. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A case study structured by temporal bracketing that presents a narrative account of multi-stakeholder perspectives. Data are collected using in-depth informal interviews with key informants and ethno-document analysis. FINDINGS: Distributed leadership enabled a collaborative research partnership to be realised. The leadership harnessed the relative strengths of partners and accounted for, and balanced, the interests of stakeholder participants involved. Across three phases, leadership and the research partnership was enacted: identifying partnerships, bottom-up engagement and enacting the research collaboration. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Two principles to maximise opportunities to mobilise capacity for quality and safety research have been identified. First, successful collaborations, particularly multi-faceted inter-related partnerships, require distributed leadership. Second, the leadership-stakeholder enactment can promote reciprocity so that the collaboration becomes mutually reinforcing and beneficial to partners. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The paper addresses the need to understand the practice and challenges of distributed leadership and how to replicate positive practices to implement patient safety research.

Health care accreditation surveyor styles typology.

PURPOSE: This paper aims to investigate how health care accreditation surveyors enact their role with a view to identifying a surveyor styles typology. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: This study was conducted in two phases. First, observational research was used to examine the conduct of a small survey team during the 2005 accreditation survey of a rural health service in Australia. The survey team was from the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS), the major health care accreditation agency in Australia. Second, the emerging typology was reviewed by an expert panel of ACHS surveyors. FINDINGS: A typology comprising three unique surveyor styles is identified--interrogator; explorer; and discusser. Additionally, a further style, the questioner, is hypothesised. RESEARCH LIMITATION/IMPLICATIONS: The typology has application for development by accreditation agencies to be used with surveyors as a self-reflection tool to improve learning and development. The knowledge gained about surveyors' styles can be used to match more effectively survey teams to organisations seeking accreditation. Further research is necessary to confirm these styles and examine whether other styles are apparent. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This study is an important step in examining the conduct of surveyors and opening up health care accreditation surveyor inter-rater reliability for further investigation.

Are health systems changing in support of patient safety? A multi-methods evaluation of education, attitudes and practice.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of a health system-wide safety improvement program (SIP) three to four years after initial implementation. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The study employs multi-methods studies involving questionnaire surveys, focus groups, in-depth interviews, observational work, ethnographic studies, documentary analysis and literature reviews with regard to the state of New South Wales, Australia, where 90,000 health professionals, under the auspices of the Health Department, provide healthcare to a seven-million population. After enrolling many participants from various groups, the measurements included: numbers of staff trained and training quality; support for SIP; clinicians' reports of safety skills acquired, work practices changed and barriers to progress; RCAs undertaken; observation of functioning of teams; committees initiated and staff appointed to deal with adverse events; documentation and computer records of reports; and peak-level responses to adverse events. FINDINGS: A cohort of 4 per cent of the state's health professionals has been trained and now applies safety skills and conducts RCAs. These and other senior professionals strongly support SIP, though many think further culture change is required if its benefits are to be more fully achieved and sustained. Improved information-handling systems have been adopted. Systems for reporting adverse incidents and conducting RCAs have been instituted, which are co-ordinated by NSW Health. When the appropriate structures, educational activities and systems are made available in the form of an SIP, measurable systems change might be introduced, as suggested by observations of the attitudes and behaviours of health practitioners and the increased reporting of, and action about, adverse events. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Few studies into health systems change employ wide-ranging research methods and metrics. This study helps to fill this gap.

Understanding stakeholders' perspectives and experiences of general practice accreditation.

OBJECTIVE: To examine general practice accreditation stakeholders' perspectives and experiences to identify program strengths and areas for improvements. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Individual (n=2) and group (n=9) interviews were conducted between September 2011-March 2012 with 52 stakeholders involved in accreditation in Australian general practices. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Member checking activities in April 2016 assessed the credibility and currency of the findings in light of current reforms. RESULTS: Overall, participants endorsed the accreditation program but identified several areas of concern. Noted strengths of the program included: program ownership, peer review and collaborative learning; access to Practice Incentives Program payments; and, improvements in safety and quality. Noted limitations in these and other aspects of the program offer potential for improvement: evidence for the impact of accreditation; resource demands; clearer outcome measures; and, specific experiences of accreditation. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of accreditation as a strategy to improve safety and quality was shaped by the attitudes and experience of stakeholders. Strengths and weaknesses in the accreditation program influence, and are influenced by, stakeholder engagement and disengagement. After several accreditation cycles, the sector has the opportunity to reflect on, review and improve the process. This will be important if the continued or extended engagement of practices is to be realised to assure the continuation and effectiveness of the accreditation program.

A prospective, multi-method, multi-disciplinary, multi-level, collaborative, social-organisational design for researching health sector accreditation [LP0560737].

BACKGROUND: Accreditation has become ubiquitous across the international health care landscape. Award of full accreditation status in health care is viewed, as it is in other sectors, as a valid indicator of high quality organisational performance. However, few studies have empirically demonstrated this assertion. The value of accreditation, therefore, remains uncertain, and this persists as a central legitimacy problem for accreditation providers, policymakers and researchers. The question arises as to how best to research the validity, impact and value of accreditation processes in health care. Most health care organisations participate in some sort of accreditation process and thus it is not possible to study its merits using a randomised controlled strategy. Further, tools and processes for accreditation and organisational performance are multifaceted. METHODS/DESIGN: To understand the relationship between them a multi-method research approach is required which incorporates both quantitative and qualitative data. The generic nature of accreditation standard development and inspection within different sectors enhances the extent to which the findings of in-depth study of accreditation process in one industry can be generalised to other industries. This paper presents a research design which comprises a prospective, multi-method, multi-level, multi-disciplinary approach to assess the validity, impact and value of accreditation. DISCUSSION: The accreditation program which assesses over 1,000 health services in Australia is used as an exemplar for testing this design. The paper proposes this design as a framework suitable for application to future international research into accreditation. Our aim is to stimulate debate on the role of accreditation and how to research it.

The impact of national accreditation reform on survey reliability: a 2-year investigation of survey coordinators' perspectives.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: Accrediting health care organizations against standards is a recognized safety and quality intervention. The credibility of an accreditation programme relies on surveying reliability. We investigated accreditation survey coordinators' perceptions of reliability issues and their continued relevancy, during a period of national accreditation reform. METHOD: In 2013 and 2014, questionnaire surveys were developed using survey coordinators' feedback of their experiences and concerns regarding the accreditation process. Each year, a purpose-designed questionnaire survey was administered during the accrediting agency survey coordinator training days. RESULTS: Participants reported that survey reliability was informed by five categories of issues: the management of the accreditation process, including standards and health care organizational issues; surveyor workforce management; survey coordinator role; survey team; and individual surveyors. A new accreditation system and programme did not alter the factors reported to shape survey reliability. However, across the reform period, there was a noted change within each category of the specific issues that were of concern. Furthermore, consensus between coordinators that existed in 2013 appears to have diminished in 2014. Across all categories, in 2014 there was greater diversity of opinion than in 2013. CONCLUSIONS: The known challenges to the reliability of an accreditation programme retained their potency and relevancy during a period of reform. The diversity of opinion identified across the coordinator workforce could potentially place the credibility and reliability of the new scheme at risk. The study highlights that reliability of an accreditation scheme is an ongoing achievement, not a one-off attainment.

Examining challenges to reliability of health service accreditation during a period of healthcare reform in Australia.

PURPOSE: Health systems are changing at variable rates. Periods of significant change can create new challenges or amplify existing barriers to accreditation program credibility and reliability. The purpose of this paper is to examine, during the transition to a new Australian accreditation scheme and standards, challenges to health service accreditation survey reliability, the salience of the issues and strategies to manage threats to survey reliability. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Across 2013-2014, a two-phase, multi-method study was conducted, involving five research activities (two questionnaire surveys and three group discussions). This paper reports data from the transcribed group discussions involving 100 participants, which was subject to content and thematic analysis. Participants were accreditation survey coordinators employed by the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards. FINDINGS: Six significant issues influencing survey reliability were reported: accreditation program governance and philosophy; accrediting agency management of the accreditation process, including the program's framework; survey coordinators; survey team dynamics; individual surveyors; and healthcare organizations' approach to accreditation. A change in governance arrangements promoted reliability with an independent authority and a new set of standards, endorsed by Federal and State governments. However, potential reliability threats were introduced by having multiple accrediting agencies approved to survey against the new national standards. Challenges that existed prior to the reformed system remain. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Capturing lessons and challenges from healthcare reforms is necessary if improvements are to be realized. The study provides practical and theoretical strategies to promote reliability in accreditation programs.

The public disclosure of accreditation information in Australia: stakeholder perceptions of opportunities and challenges.

Public disclosure is increasingly a requirement of accrediting agencies and governments. There are few published empirical evaluations of disclosure interventions that inform evidence-based implementation or policy. This study investigated the practices associated with the public disclosure of healthcare accreditation information, in addition to multi-stakeholder perceptions of key challenges and opportunities for improvement. We conducted a mixed methods study comprising analysis of disclosure practices by accreditation agencies, and 47 semi-structured individual or group interviews involving 258 people. Participants were diverse stakeholders associated with Australian primary, acute and residential aged care accreditation programmes. Four interrelated issues were identified. First, there was broad agreement that accreditation information should be publicly disclosed, although the three accreditation agencies differed in the information they made public. Second, two implementation issues emerged: the need to educate the community about accreditation information, and the practical question of the detail to be provided. Third, the impact, both positive and negative, of disclosing accreditation information was raised. Fourth, the lack of knowledge about the impact on consumers was discussed. Public disclosure of accreditation information is an idea that has widespread support. However, translating the idea into practice, so as to produce appropriate, meaningful information, is a challenge.

Researching the reliability of accreditation survey teams: lessons learnt when things went awry.

Accreditation of health organisations, occurring in over 70 countries, is predicated upon the reliability of survey teams judgements, but we do not know the extent to which survey teams are reliable. To contribute evidence to this issue, we investigated the reliability of two survey teams simultaneously assessing an organisation. The setting was a large Australian teaching hospital, and data were derived from interviews, observations and survey documents. Participants were from four groups: hospital staff, accreditation agency personnel and surveyors, and research staff. Thematic analysis was employed to identify significant factors that influenced the study. The two survey teams ratings and recommendations demonstrated high levels of agreement. However, while a common understanding of the study existed, the research was compromised. There were difficulties enacting the study. Contrary to negotiated arrangements, the pressure of the study resulted in surveyors discussing evidence and their interpretation of standards. Uncontrollable circumstances (late changes of personnel), and unexpected events (a breakdown of working relationships), challenged the study. The twin lessons learnt are that a consistent survey outcome is likely to be reached when reliability of process and consistent application of standards are pursued, and research requires negotiating challenges and relationships.

Evaluation of current Australian health service accreditation processes (ACCREDIT-CAP): protocol for a mixed-method research project.

INTRODUCTION: Accreditation programmes aim to improve the quality and safety of health services, and have been widely implemented. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the outcomes of existing programmes. The Accreditation Collaborative for the Conduct of Research, Evaluation and Designated Investigations through Teamwork-Current Accreditation Processes (ACCREDIT-CAP) project is designed to address key gaps in the literature by evaluating the current processes of three accreditation programmes used across Australian acute, primary and aged care services. METHODS AND DESIGN: The project comprises three mixed-method studies involving documentary analyses, surveys, focus groups and individual interviews. Study samples will comprise stakeholders from across the Australian healthcare system: accreditation agencies; federal and state government departments; consumer advocates; professional colleges and associations; and staff of acute, primary and aged care services. Sample sizes have been determined to ensure results allow robust conclusions. Qualitative information will be thematically analysed, supported by the use of textual grouping software. Quantitative data will be subjected to a variety of analytical procedures, including descriptive and comparative statistics. The results are designed to inform health system policy and planning decisions in Australia and internationally. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The project has been approved by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number HREC 10274). Results will be reported to partner organisations, healthcare consumers and other stakeholders via peer-reviewed publications, conference and seminar presentations, and a publicly accessible website.

Narrative synthesis of health service accreditation literature.

AIMS: To systematically identify and synthesise health service accreditation literature. METHODS: A systematic identification and narrative synthesis of health service accreditation literature published prior to 2012 were conducted. The search identified 122 empirical studies that examined either the processes or impacts of accreditation programmes. Study components were recorded, including: dates of publication; research settings; levels of study evidence and quality using established rating frameworks; and key results. A content analysis was conducted to determine the frequency of key themes and subthemes examined in the literature and identify knowledge-gaps requiring research attention. RESULTS: The majority of studies (n=67) were published since 2006, occurred in the USA (n=60) and focused on acute care (n=79). Two thematic categories, that is, 'organisational impacts' and 'relationship to quality measures', were addressed 60 or more times in the literature. 'Financial impacts', 'consumer or patient satisfaction' and 'survey and surveyor issues' were each examined fewer than 15 times. The literature is limited in terms of the level of evidence and quality of studies, but highlights potential relationships among accreditation programmes, high quality organisational processes and safe clinical care. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the limitations of the literature, it is not prudent to make strong claims about the effectiveness of health service accreditation. Nonetheless, several critical issues and knowledge-gaps were identified that may help stimulate and inform discussion among healthcare stakeholders. Ongoing effort is required to build upon the accreditation evidence-base by using high quality experimental study designs to examine the processes, effectiveness and financial value of accreditation programmes and their critical components in different healthcare domains.