Cargando…
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2006
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1584229/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16968552 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-113 |
_version_ | 1782130326099722240 |
---|---|
author | Braithwaite, Jeffrey Westbrook, Johanna Pawsey, Marjorie Greenfield, David Naylor, Justine Iedema, Rick Runciman, Bill Redman, Sally Jorm, Christine Robinson, Maureen Nathan, Sally Gibberd, Robert |
author_facet | Braithwaite, Jeffrey Westbrook, Johanna Pawsey, Marjorie Greenfield, David Naylor, Justine Iedema, Rick Runciman, Bill Redman, Sally Jorm, Christine Robinson, Maureen Nathan, Sally Gibberd, Robert |
author_sort | Braithwaite, Jeffrey |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-1584229 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2006 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-15842292006-09-29 A prospective, multi-method, multi-disciplinary, multi-level, collaborative, social-organisational design for researching health sector accreditation [LP0560737] Braithwaite, Jeffrey Westbrook, Johanna Pawsey, Marjorie Greenfield, David Naylor, Justine Iedema, Rick Runciman, Bill Redman, Sally Jorm, Christine Robinson, Maureen Nathan, Sally Gibberd, Robert BMC Health Serv Res Study Protocol 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. BioMed Central 2006-09-12 /pmc/articles/PMC1584229/ /pubmed/16968552 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-113 Text en Copyright © 2006 Braithwaite et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Study Protocol Braithwaite, Jeffrey Westbrook, Johanna Pawsey, Marjorie Greenfield, David Naylor, Justine Iedema, Rick Runciman, Bill Redman, Sally Jorm, Christine Robinson, Maureen Nathan, Sally Gibberd, Robert A prospective, multi-method, multi-disciplinary, multi-level, collaborative, social-organisational design for researching health sector accreditation [LP0560737] |
title | A prospective, multi-method, multi-disciplinary, multi-level, collaborative, social-organisational design for researching health sector accreditation [LP0560737] |
title_full | A prospective, multi-method, multi-disciplinary, multi-level, collaborative, social-organisational design for researching health sector accreditation [LP0560737] |
title_fullStr | A prospective, multi-method, multi-disciplinary, multi-level, collaborative, social-organisational design for researching health sector accreditation [LP0560737] |
title_full_unstemmed | A prospective, multi-method, multi-disciplinary, multi-level, collaborative, social-organisational design for researching health sector accreditation [LP0560737] |
title_short | A prospective, multi-method, multi-disciplinary, multi-level, collaborative, social-organisational design for researching health sector accreditation [LP0560737] |
title_sort | prospective, multi-method, multi-disciplinary, multi-level, collaborative, social-organisational design for researching health sector accreditation [lp0560737] |
topic | Study Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1584229/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16968552 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-113 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT braithwaitejeffrey aprospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT westbrookjohanna aprospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT pawseymarjorie aprospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT greenfielddavid aprospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT naylorjustine aprospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT iedemarick aprospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT runcimanbill aprospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT redmansally aprospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT jormchristine aprospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT robinsonmaureen aprospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT nathansally aprospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT gibberdrobert aprospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT braithwaitejeffrey prospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT westbrookjohanna prospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT pawseymarjorie prospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT greenfielddavid prospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT naylorjustine prospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT iedemarick prospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT runcimanbill prospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT redmansally prospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT jormchristine prospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT robinsonmaureen prospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT nathansally prospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 AT gibberdrobert prospectivemultimethodmultidisciplinarymultilevelcollaborativesocialorganisationaldesignforresearchinghealthsectoraccreditationlp0560737 |