Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25367049›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2015

Analysing 'big picture' policy reform mechanisms: the Australian health service safety and quality accreditation scheme.

David Greenfield, Reece Hinchcliff, Margaret Banks, Virginia Mumford, Anne Hogden, Deborah Debono, Marjorie Pawsey, Johanna Westbrook, Jeffrey Braithwaite

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. New ZealandInternational journal of health policy and management · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Voice of the Clinician: the case of an Australian health system.Journal of health organization and management · 2017
    Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

David GreenfieldCentre for Clinical Governance Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Reece HinchcliffCentre for Clinical Governance Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Margaret BanksAustralian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Virginia MumfordCentre for Clinical Governance Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Anne HogdenCentre for Clinical Governance Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Deborah DebonoCentre for Clinical Governance Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Marjorie PawseyCentre for Clinical Governance Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Johanna WestbrookCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Jeffrey BraithwaiteCentre for Clinical Governance Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAgencies promoting national health-care accreditation reform to improve the quality of care and safety of patients are largely working without specific blueprints that can increase the likelihood of success.

objectiveThis study investigated the development and implementation of the Australian Health Service Safety and Quality Accreditation Scheme and National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards (the Scheme), their expected benefits, and challenges and facilitators to implementation.

methodsA multimethod study was conducted using document analysis, observation and interviews. Data sources were eight government reports, 25 h of observation and 34 interviews with 197 diverse stakeholders.

resultsDevelopment of the Scheme was achieved through extensive consultation conducted over a prolonged period, that is, from 2000 onwards. Participants, prior to implementation, believed the Scheme would produce benefits at multiple levels of the health system. The Scheme offered a national framework to promote patient-centred care, allowing organizations to engage and coordinate professionals' quality improvement activities. Significant challenges are apparent, including developing and maintaining stakeholder understanding of the Scheme's requirements. Risks must also be addressed. The standardized application of, and reliable assessment against, the standards must be achieved to maintain credibility with the Scheme. Government employment of effective stakeholder engagement strategies, such as structured consultation processes, was viewed as necessary for successful, sustainable implementation.

conclusionThe Australian experience demonstrates that national accreditation reform can engender widespread stakeholder support, but implementation challenges must be overcome. In particular, the fundamental role of continued stakeholder engagement increases the likelihood that such reforms are taken up and spread across health systems.

Indexed as

AccreditationPatient SafetyPolicy MakingAustraliaHealth ServicesHumansPatient-Centered CareProgram DevelopmentQuality of Health Careaccreditationhealthcare quality assurancehealthcare reformhealth policypolicy development

Identifiers

PMID25367049
PMCPMC5810648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.