ArticleBMJ open2012
Evaluation of current Australian health service accreditation processes (ACCREDIT-CAP): protocol for a mixed-method research project.
Article in BMJ open, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of hospital accreditation: the challenges of measuring complex intervention effects.BMC health services research · 2015Pooled it
- Aged-care nurses in rural Tasmanian clinical settings more likely to think hypothetical medication error would be reported and disclosed compared to hospital and community nurses.The Australian journal of rural health · 2015Article
- Analysing 'big picture' policy reform mechanisms: the Australian health service safety and quality accreditation scheme.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015Article
- Development and application of an indicator assessment tool for measuring health services accreditation programs.BMC research notes · 2015Article
- A mechanism for revising accreditation standards: a study of the process, resources required and evaluation outcomes.BMC health services research · 2014Article
- Stakeholder perspectives on implementing accreditation programs: a qualitative study of enabling factors.BMC health services research · 2013Article
- Economic evaluation of Australian acute care accreditation (ACCREDIT-CBA (Acute)): study protocol for a mixed-method research project.BMJ open · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAccreditation programmes aim to improve the quality and safety of health services, and have been widely implemented. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the outcomes of existing programmes. The Accreditation Collaborative for the Conduct of Research, Evaluation and Designated Investigations through Teamwork-Current Accreditation Processes (ACCREDIT-CAP) project is designed to address key gaps in the literature by evaluating the current processes of three accreditation programmes used across Australian acute, primary and aged care services. METHODS AND
designThe project comprises three mixed-method studies involving documentary analyses, surveys, focus groups and individual interviews. Study samples will comprise stakeholders from across the Australian healthcare system: accreditation agencies; federal and state government departments; consumer advocates; professional colleges and associations; and staff of acute, primary and aged care services. Sample sizes have been determined to ensure results allow robust conclusions. Qualitative information will be thematically analysed, supported by the use of textual grouping software. Quantitative data will be subjected to a variety of analytical procedures, including descriptive and comparative statistics. The results are designed to inform health system policy and planning decisions in Australia and internationally. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The project has been approved by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number HREC 10274). Results will be reported to partner organisations, healthcare consumers and other stakeholders via peer-reviewed publications, conference and seminar presentations, and a publicly accessible website.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.