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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Braithwaite, Jeffrey, Westbrook, Johanna, Pawsey, Marjorie, Greenfield, David, Naylor, Justine, Iedema, Rick, Runciman, Bill, Redman, Sally, Jorm, Christine, Robinson, Maureen, Nathan, Sally, Gibberd, Robert
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