ArticleColombia medica (Cali, Colombia)
Perception of the healthcare accreditation system in Colombia.
Article in Colombia medica (Cali, Colombia). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Accreditation is an external, systematic, periodic, and voluntary evaluation process to which health care institutions submit themselves in order to demonstrate compliance with superior levels of quality of care. The Icontec, through an evaluative model, accredits the quality of health institutions in Colombia. Methods: Descriptive cross-sectional study following the recommendations of the survey study report. Using an electronic format, 22 health institutions with experience in the Icontec accreditation process were surveyed. The instrument evaluated three thematic axes of the process: added value provided by the Results: the items with the best perception were the humanization of care (86.4%) followed by patient safety and teamwork (81.8%). After accreditation, the quality of the processes improved (77.4%), infection prevention and control (68.1%) and physician commitment (63.6%). 54.6% felt that evaluators use different methods of evaluation. 63.6% of the respondents considered that Icontec does not comply with the times defined for the delivery of the report. Conclusion: the Icontec accreditation system adds value to health institutions in most of the thematic areas evaluated, especially in the humanization of care and patient safety. The lowest perception is presented in the increase of physicians' commitment.
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.