ArticleBMC health services research2014
A mechanism for revising accreditation standards: a study of the process, resources required and evaluation outcomes.
Article in BMC health services research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mediators of change in healthcare organisations subject to external assessment: a systematic review with narrative synthesis.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Enabling Implementation of Competency Based Medical Education through an Outcomes-Focused Accreditation System.Perspectives on medical education · 2024Article
- Revision of institutional accreditation standards and processes in Iranian medical universities.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
- The Prerequisites of Executing the Accreditation Program for Primary Healthcare: A Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis.Iranian journal of public health · 2024Review
- Challenges of Implementing an Effective Primary Health Care Accreditation Program: a qualitative study in Iran.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- A Novel GPPAS Model: Guiding the Implementation of Antimicrobial Stewardship in Primary Care Utilising Collaboration between General Practitioners and Community Pharmacists.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Chiropractic program changes facilitated by the European Council on Chiropractic Education Accreditation reports.The Journal of chiropractic education · 2021Article
- Australian chiropractic students' perceptions of education: validation of a questionnaire.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2021Article
- Developing National Functional Accreditation Model for Primary Healthcares with Emphasis on Family Practice in Iran.Korean journal of family medicine · 2021Article
- Are Councils on Chiropractic Education expectations of chiropractic graduates changing for the better: a comparison of similarities and differences of the graduate competencies of the Chiropractic Council on Education-Australasia from 2009 to 2017.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2020Article
- A perspective on Chiropractic Councils on Education accreditation standards and processes from the inside: a narrative description of expert opinion: Part 1: Themes.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2019Article
- Comparing the old to the new: A comparison of similarities and differences of the accreditation standards of the chiropractic council on education-international from 2010 to 2016.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2018Article
- Economics and Outcome After Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.EBioMedicine · 2015Article
- Perception of the healthcare accreditation system in Colombia.Colombia medica (Cali, Colombia)Article
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
backgroundThe study objective was to identify and describe the process, resources and expertise required for the revision of accreditation standards, and report outcomes arising from such activities.
methodsSecondary document analysis of materials from an accreditation standards development agency. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners' (RACGP) documents, minutes and reports related to the revision of the accreditation standards were examined.
resultsThe RACGP revision of the accreditation standards was conducted over a 12 month period and comprised six phases with multiple tasks, including: review methodology planning; review of the evidence base and each standard; new material development; constructing field trial methodology; drafting, trialling and refining new standards; and production of new standards. Over 100 individuals participated, with an additional 30 providing periodic input and feedback. Participants were drawn from healthcare professional associations, primary healthcare services, accreditation agencies, government agencies and public health organisations. Their expertise spanned: project management; standards development and writing; primary healthcare practice; quality and safety improvement methodologies; accreditation implementation and surveying; and research. The review and development process was shaped by five issues: project expectations; resource and time requirements; a collaborative approach; stakeholder engagement; and the product produced. The RACGP evaluation was that participants were positive about their experience, the standards produced and considered them relevant for the sector.
conclusionsThe revision of accreditation standards requires considerable resources and expertise, drawn from a broad range of stakeholders. Collaborative, inclusive processes that engage key stakeholders helps promote greater industry acceptance of the standards.
Indexed as
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.