Greenfield David, Braithwaite Jeffrey
Centre for Clinical Governance Research in Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2008 Jun;20(3):172-83. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzn005. Epub 2008 Mar 13.
The purpose of this study was to identify and analyze research into accreditation and accreditation processes.
A multi-method, systematic review of the accreditation literature was conducted from March to May 2007. The search identified articles researching accreditation. Discussion or commentary pieces were excluded.
From the initial identification of over 3000 abstracts, 66 studies that met the search criteria by empirically examining accreditation were selected. DATA EXTRACTION AND RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: The 66 studies were retrieved and analyzed. The results, examining the impact or effectiveness of accreditation, were classified into 10 categories: professions' attitudes to accreditation, promote change, organizational impact, financial impact, quality measures, program assessment, consumer views or patient satisfaction, public disclosure, professional development and surveyor issues.
The analysis reveals a complex picture. In two categories consistent findings were recorded: promote change and professional development. Inconsistent findings were identified in five categories: professions' attitudes to accreditation, organizational impact, financial impact, quality measures and program assessment. The remaining three categories-consumer views or patient satisfaction, public disclosure and surveyor issues-did not have sufficient studies to draw any conclusion. The search identified a number of national health care accreditation organizations engaged in research activities.
The health care accreditation industry appears to be purposefully moving towards constructing the evidence to ground our understanding of accreditation.
本研究旨在识别并分析有关认证及认证流程的研究。
于2007年3月至5月对认证文献进行了多方法、系统的综述。检索确定了研究认证的文章。排除了讨论或评论类文章。
从最初识别出的3000多篇摘要中,选取了66项通过实证研究认证而符合检索标准的研究。
检索并分析了这66项研究。考察认证影响或效果的结果分为10类:专业人员对认证的态度、促进变革、组织影响、财务影响、质量衡量、项目评估、消费者看法或患者满意度、公开披露、专业发展以及评审员问题。
分析呈现出复杂的情况。在两类中记录到了一致的结果:促进变革和专业发展。在五类中发现了不一致的结果:专业人员对认证的态度、组织影响、财务影响、质量衡量和项目评估。其余三类——消费者看法或患者满意度、公开披露和评审员问题——没有足够的研究来得出任何结论。检索发现了一些从事研究活动的国家医疗保健认证组织。
医疗保健认证行业似乎正有意朝着构建证据以奠定我们对认证的理解基础的方向发展。