Tal Orna, Rassin Michal
Management, Assaf Harofeh Medical Center.
Harefuah. 2018 May;157(5):287-291.
Evaluating the impact of the accreditation process on the basis of achievements, benefits and barriers from the viewpoint of leaders of the hospital accreditation in comparison to the hospital staff members.
The implementation of standards for accreditation aim to improve the safety and quality of treatment. Partaking in this process has raised dilemmas regarding the actual benefits of accreditation in relation to the efforts invested in its achievement. Examining the standpoints of leaders of the process can reflect on the influence of this mechanism both on hospital activity and on hospital staff.
A survey was conducted among two groups: The first group, the JCI accreditation leaders group, included 35 participants (the steering committee, 15 chapter heads and the hospital management); and 71 participants from the extended headquarters (senior physicians, nurses and administration staff). The second group included 564 hospital personnel from the medical, nursing, alternative medicine, administrators and housekeeping staff. The questionnaire included 46 statements in five fields: the effectiveness and benefit from the process, weaknesses, barriers, leadership and administration of the accreditation.
All the respondents to the survey perceived the process as a leverage for implementing significant changes in all levels of the organization. There were high levels of agreement on the benefit of the process regarding the effective and affective contribution - high morale, feelings of accomplishment and team pride, improvement in communication, cooperation and social cohesion. The weaknesses of the process, including financial costs, bureaucracy, paper overflow and work overload, were awarded relatively low scores. The advantages of the process were ranked high in both groups; the accreditation leaders group attributed the process benefits to the organization as a whole, ranking it significantly higher, as well as for the individual. The hospital staff rated as significantly higher: the contribution of the process on the department level and the opportunity to promote accomplishments that were not reached in the past.
The survey raised organizational discussion which minimized the objections to the process of change. Focusing on chosen aspects bridged between managers and on-site staff to find effective solutions.
In order to promote successful inter-organizational processes the hospital requires both leadership and a well-formulated strategic program. The secondary gains from the broad process encompassing the whole organization, such as in the case of accreditation, are expressed in the form of social cohesion, cooperation, group pride and high staff morale.
从医院评审领导者的角度，与医院工作人员相比，根据成果、益处和障碍来评估评审过程的影响。
评审标准的实施旨在提高治疗的安全性和质量。参与这一过程引发了关于评审实际益处与为实现评审所投入努力之间关系的困境。审视该过程领导者的观点能够反映这一机制对医院活动和医院工作人员的影响。
对两组人员进行了调查：第一组，即JCI评审领导者组，包括35名参与者（指导委员会成员、15名章节负责人和医院管理层）；以及来自扩展总部的71名参与者（高级医师、护士和行政人员）。第二组包括来自医疗、护理、替代医学、行政和家政人员的564名医院工作人员。问卷包括五个领域的46项陈述：该过程的有效性和益处、弱点、障碍、评审的领导与管理。
所有参与调查者都认为该过程是在组织各级实施重大变革的一种手段。对于该过程在有效和情感贡献方面的益处，如高昂的士气、成就感和团队自豪感、沟通、合作及社会凝聚力的改善，存在高度共识。该过程的弱点，包括财务成本、官僚作风、文件泛滥和工作负担过重，得分相对较低。该过程的优势在两组中排名都很高；评审领导者组将该过程的益处归因于整个组织，排名显著更高，对个人也是如此。医院工作人员的评分显著更高的方面是：该过程在部门层面的贡献以及推动过去未实现成就的机会。
该调查引发了组织层面的讨论，减少了对变革过程的反对意见。关注选定的方面弥合了管理者与现场工作人员之间的分歧，以找到有效的解决方案。
为了促进成功的组织间流程，医院既需要领导力，也需要精心制定的战略计划。涵盖整个组织的广泛过程所带来的次要收益，如在评审情况下，表现为社会凝聚力、合作、团队自豪感和高昂的员工士气。
