The Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1014, Copenhagen, Denmark.
BMC Fam Pract. 2021 Jul 31;22(1):163. doi: 10.1186/s12875-021-01497-7.
Accreditation is a widely employed quality assurance concept in health care and the survey visit is the central method for assessing participating organisations' compliance with accreditation standards. Despite this, research on the survey visit as a method for assessing compliance is scarce. In Denmark a mandatory accreditation programme was introduced for general practice clinics in 2016. We performed a qualitative, explorative study of the reflections and actions of surveyors and general practice professionals (GPs and staff) concerning the production of information about compliance with the accreditation standards in relation to the survey visit.
We conducted qualitative interviews with GPs and staff from general practices in two Danish regions before and after their survey visit. We also interviewed the surveyors. We observed survey visits to qualify the interviews and analysis. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analysed using an integrative approach.
The surveyors combined documents, questioning of the professionals, and visual impressions of the clinic to assess compliance. They sought to de-dramatise the survey visit and to generate a natural conversation with attention to workflows. Trust in the professionals' statements was fundamental to the surveyors' approach, and they were confident in their ability to assess compliance. Their level of scrutiny was influenced by their observations and the quality of documents. The general practice professionals had generally sought to comply with the standards and to give an authentic portrait of the clinic. The few cases of misrepresention concerned standards that the professionals found too excessive.
The validity of the survey visit as a method to assess compliance was highly dependent on the professionals' willingness to convey a realistic picture of their practice. Since they were generally willing to do so, the trust-based approach seemed suitable for identifying cases of non-compliance caused by insufficient understanding of the standards. However, it can be difficult for the surveyors to detect when the professionals engage in misrepresentation due to disagreements with the standards. Thus, when adopting a trust-based approach to the survey visit, it seems particularly important to ensure that the professionals view the standards as meaningful and manageable.
认证是医疗保健中广泛采用的质量保证概念,现场调查是评估参与组织遵守认证标准的核心方法。尽管如此,关于现场调查作为评估合规性的方法的研究却很少。丹麦于 2016 年为全科诊所推出了一项强制性认证计划。我们对调查员和全科医生专业人员(GP 和工作人员)对与现场调查相关的合规性信息的生成的反思和行动进行了定性、探索性研究。
我们在丹麦两个地区的全科医生和工作人员进行现场调查之前和之后进行了定性访谈。我们还采访了调查员。我们观察了现场调查,以充实访谈和分析。所有访谈均进行了录音、转录,并采用综合方法进行分析。
调查员结合文件、对专业人员的询问和诊所的视觉印象来评估合规性。他们试图淡化现场调查,并在关注工作流程的同时进行自然对话。对专业人员陈述的信任是调查员方法的基础,他们对自己评估合规性的能力充满信心。他们的审查水平受到他们的观察和文件质量的影响。全科医生专业人员普遍寻求遵守标准,并对诊所进行真实的描述。少数几起不实陈述的案例涉及他们认为过于过分的标准。
现场调查作为评估合规性的方法的有效性高度依赖于专业人员传达其实践真实情况的意愿。由于他们普遍愿意这样做,因此基于信任的方法似乎适合识别因对标准理解不足而导致的不合规情况。然而,调查员很难发现专业人员因与标准存在分歧而进行虚假陈述的情况。因此,在采用基于信任的现场调查方法时,确保专业人员认为标准具有意义且可管理似乎尤为重要。