International approaches for implementing accreditation programmes in different healthcare facilities: a comparative case study in Australia, Botswana, Denmark, and Jordan.

Healthcare accreditation programmes have been adopted internationally to maintain the quality and safety of services. Accreditation assesses the compliance of organizations to a series of standards. The evidence base supporting the benefits of accreditation is mixed, potentially influenced by differences in local implementation and operationalization of standards. Successful implementation is associated with optimizing regulation, funding, and government commitment. Implementation of accreditation is a complex intervention that needs to be tailored to meet contextual differences across settings. Comparing why and how accreditation is implemented across countries supports the effective implementation of new programmes and refinements to existing systems. This article presents four case studies from Australia, Botswana, Denmark, and Jordan to consider a geographic spread and mix of high- and upper-middle-income countries. The data were derived from a review of accreditation programme documents and follow-up discussions with directors of the accrediting bodies in the countries of interest. Each case study was summarized according to a standardized framework for comparison: (i) goals (why), (ii) programme implementation (how), (iii) outcomes based on pre-post measures (what), and (iv) lessons learned (enablers and barriers). The accreditation programmes were all introduced in the 2000s to improve quality and safety. Documents from each country outlined motivations for introducing an accreditation programme, which was predominantly initiated by the government. The programmes were adopted in demarcated healthcare sectors (e.g. primary care and hospital settings), with a mix of mandatory and voluntary approaches. Implementation support centred on the interpretation and operationalization of standards and follow-up on variation in compliance with standards, after announced surveys. Most standards focused on patient safety, patient centredness, and governance but differed between using standard sets on quality management or supportive processes for patient care. Methods for evaluation of programme success and outcomes measured varied. Frequently reported enablers of successful implementation included strong leadership and ownership of the process. A lack of awareness of quality and safety, insufficient training in quality improvement methods, and transfer of staff represented the most common challenges. This case analysis of accreditation programmes in a variety of countries highlights consistent strategies utilized, key enabling factors, barriers, and the influence of contextual differences. Our framework for describing why, how, what, and lessons learned demonstrates innovation and experimentation in approaches used across high- and upper-middle-income countries, hospital and primary care, and specialist clinics.

Accreditation in 2030.

With the rapid acceleration of changes being experienced throughout the world and in particular within health and health and social care, accreditation programmes must keep pace or go the way of the dinosaur. While accreditation has deep roots in some countries, in the past 30 years, it has spread to a considerably larger range of countries in a mix of mandatory and voluntary systems. Accreditation is a tool to improve the quality of healthcare and social care, and in particular, there is recent recognition of its value in low- and middle-income countries, with promotion by the World Health Organization (WHO). The challenge is that with the rapid pace of change, how does accreditation reframe and reposition itself to ensure relevance in 2030? Accreditation must adapt and be relevant in order to be sustainable. This article outlines the fundamental principles, reviews the global trends' impact on accreditation and the challenges with the existing model and, through the lens of living in 2030, outlines how accreditation programmes will be structured and applied 10 years from now.

SafeCare: An Innovative Approach for Improving Quality Through Standards, Benchmarking, and Improvement in Low- and Middle- Income Countries.

BACKGROUND: In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), patients often have limited access to high-quality care because of a shortage of facilities and human resources, inefficiency of resource allocation, and limited health insurance. SafeCare was developed to provide innovative health care standards; surveyor training; a grading system for quality of care; a quality improvement process that is broken down into achievable, measurable steps to facilitate incremental improvement; and a private sector-supported health financing model. METHODS: Three organizations-PharmAccess Foundation, Joint Commission International, and the Council for Health Service Accreditation of Southern Africa-launched SafeCare in 2011 as a formal partnership. Five SafeCare levels of improvement are allocated on the basis of an algorithm that incorporates both the overall score and weighted criteria, so that certain high-risk criteria need to be in place before a facility can move to the next SafeCare certification level. A customized quality improvement plan based on the SafeCare assessment results lists the specific, measurable activities that should be undertaken to address gaps in quality found during the initial assessment and to meet the nextlevel SafeCare certificate. RESULTS: The standards have been implemented in more than 800 primary and secondary facilities by qualified local surveyors, in partnership with various local public and private partner organizations, in six sub-Saharan African countries (Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Namibia, Tanzania, and Zambia). CONCLUSION: Expanding access to care and improving health care quality in LMICs will require a coordinated effort between institutions and other stakeholders. SafeCare's standards and assessment methodology can help build trust between stakeholders and lay the foundation for country-led quality monitoring systems.

Histopathological features of Capillaria hepatica infection in laboratory rabbits.

Capillaria hepatica is a nematode parasite of wild rodents and other mammals. Adult worms inhabit the liver. Recently, during the necropsy examination of a group of 160 rabbits from a commercial supplier, firm pale or cystic areas (1-5 mm) were noted on the liver in thirteen animals. On further investigation, these animals were found to be infected with C. hepatica. The histopathological features of the infection in the rabbit are described for the first time and diagnostic features recorded. Lesions were identified predominantly in portal tracts consisting of dilated bile ducts with luminal debris, peribiliary inflammatory cell infiltrates, and fibrosis. Large granulomas (macrogranulomas) were evident in portal areas and involved the bile ducts. Macrogranulomas contained collections of characteristic C. hepatica eggs, macrophages, eosinophils, and lymphocytes. Small granulomas (microgranulomas), characterized by epithelioid macrophages surrounded by lymphocytes and eosinophils, were also identified. C. hepatica eggs were also observed in the lumina of the bile ducts and gall bladder. No adult C. hepatica worms were identified. Oocysts of Eimeria stiedae were also evident in the biliary epithelium in some animals. The unique characteristics of the C. hepatica life cycle are described, and the differential diagnosis of hepatic capillariasis is discussed.