Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32293445›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Accreditation as a management tool: a national survey of hospital managers' perceptions and use of a mandatory accreditation program in Denmark.

Louise A Ellis, Anne Nicolaisen, Søren Bie Bogh, Kate Churruca, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Christian von Plessen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The attitudes of hospital directors towards normalising accreditation standards: A qualitative descriptive study for Saudi Arabia.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2022
    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

6 authors.

Louise A EllisCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Anne NicolaisenOPEN, Odense Patient Data Explorative Network, University of Southern Denmark and Odense University Hospital, DK-5000, Odense, Denmark.
Søren Bie BoghOPEN, Odense Patient Data Explorative Network, University of Southern Denmark and Odense University Hospital, DK-5000, Odense, Denmark.
Kate ChurrucaCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Jeffrey BraithwaiteCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Christian von PlessenDepartment of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. christian.von-plessen@vd.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to examine managers' attitudes towards and use of a mandatory accreditation program in Denmark, the Danish Healthcare Quality Program (Den Danske Kvalitetsmodel [DDKM]) after it was terminated in 2015.

methodsWe designed a nationwide cross-sectional online survey of all senior and middle managers in the 31 somatic and psychiatric public hospitals in Denmark. We elicited managers' attitudes towards and use of DDKM as a management using 5-point Likert scales. Regression analysis examined differences in responses by age, years in current position, and management level.

resultsThe response rate was 49% with 533 of 1095 managers participating. Overall, managers' perceptions of accreditation were favorable, highlighting key findings about some of the strengths of accreditation. DDKM was found most useful for standardizing processes, improving patient safety, and clarifying responsibility in the organization. Managers were most negative about DDKM's ability to improve their hospitals' financial performance, reshape the work environment, and support the function of clinical teams. Results were generally consistent across age and management level; however, managers with greater years of experience in their position had more favorable attitudes, and there was some variation in attitudes towards and use of DDKM between regions.

conclusionFuture attention should be paid to attitudes towards accreditation. Positive attitudes and the effective use of accreditation as a management tool can support the implementation of accreditation, the development of standards, overcoming disagreements and boundaries and improving future quality programs.

Indexed as

AccreditationAttitude of Health PersonnelMandatory ProgramsAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesDenmarkHealth Care SurveysHospital AdministratorsHospitals, PublicHumansMiddle AgedQuality of Health CareCertification/accreditation of hospitalsQuality managementSurvey

Identifiers

PMID32293445
PMCPMC7158040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.