Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39962448›Full record

ArticleBMC nursing2025

Explaining the barriers and facilitators of the accreditation process in maternity departments.

Zahra Hezbiyan, Afifa Radha Aziz, Alaa Jawad Kadhim, Ali Javadzadeh, Ahmad Parizad, Porsaadat Sedigheh Gil Chalan, Reza Norouzadeh, Nahid Mehran, Atye Babaii, Mohammad Abbasinia and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

11 authors.

Zahra HezbiyanMaster of Science in Midwifery, Deputy of Education, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran.
Afifa Radha AzizDepartment of Pediatric Nursing, College of Nursing, Al-Bayan University, Baghdad, Iraq.
Alaa Jawad KadhimDepartment of Adult Nursing, College of Nursing, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq.
Ali JavadzadehMaster of Science Medical-Surgical Nursing, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.
Ahmad ParizadDepartment of Medical-Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran.
Porsaadat Sedigheh Gil ChalanArdabil University of Medical Sciences, Ardabil, Iran.
Reza NorouzadehNursing and midwifery faculty, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.
Nahid MehranDepartment of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran.
Atye BabaiiDepartment of Medical-Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Shahid Lvasani St., Qom, 3716993456, Iran.
Mohammad AbbasiniaDepartment of Medical-Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Shahid Lvasani St., Qom, 3716993456, Iran.
Bahman AghaieDepartment of Medical-Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Shahid Lvasani St., Qom, 3716993456, Iran. bahman.aghai@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccreditation is an important tool to ensure the quality of health services in health systems. Many studies have been conducted on the quality of accreditation in general and intensive care settings from the perspective of clinical nurses and nursing managers, but the barriers and facilitators of accreditation in maternity departments have not been studied. This study aims to explain the experiences and perspectives of midwives on implementing the accreditation process in the maternity department.

methodsThis qualitative conventional content analysis research was conducted in 2024 in Qom, Iran. Twelve midwives from the maternity departments of two referral hospitals were purposefully chosen. The data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews. Data analysis was performed using Graneheim and Lundman's approach.

resultsThree categories were extracted for accreditation barriers: Management barriers with subcategories of "The lack of cultural structure, Shortage of personnel, Not entering gynecologists into the accreditation process, Non-effective management", Administrative barriers with subcategories of "Paperwork and a lot of incoming information, Time-consuming and consuming tasks of accreditation, The dilemma between accreditation indicators and hospital standards, Imbalance between shift work activities, and participation in the process of accreditation, and Personal barriers with subcategories of " Paperwork and a lot of incoming information, Head midwife's stress and concern for accreditation, Inappropriate staff attitude toward accreditation, Reducing the motivation in the midwife, Midwife feel forced to do accreditation, Resistance to change. Two categories were extracted for accreditation facilitators: Actual facilitators with subcategories of" The availability of in-service training courses, Determining the errors and clarification activities with documentation, Clinical midwifes' involvement in decisions of the accreditation, Risk reduction, and job security "and Potential facilitators with subcategories of "Hope for a better future with the accreditation process, Satisfaction of the accreditation, transparency, Emphasis on efficiency and effectiveness".

conclusionsBarriers to completing accreditation are multidimensional. The lack of proper management to create a cultural structure, to involve members of the treatment team, to solve the lack of staff, conflict between hospital standards and accreditation standards, frequent manual documentation, lack of anxiety control and promotion of motivation are some of the barriers to completing accreditation. Having multiple in-service courses related to accreditation and categorized errors and emphasizing effectiveness is a facilitator of accreditation completion. Considering the importance of the mother and newborn, health managers should adopt short and long-term management policies in the maternity departments to improve the facilitating factors and remove the barriers. To control the erosiveness of the accreditation process, the high-level managers of the hospitals should teach midwives effective management methods, and the active participation of gynecologists, increase motivation with financial and administrative incentives, involve more midwives in committees, and increase the personnel involved in the accreditation process. The middle managers of the hospital should also coordinate and balance the number of clinical shifts with the number of shifts in the accreditation process team. Planning in-service training to explain and inform about how to accurately complete accreditation standards and classification activities to reduce work errors.

Indexed as

AccreditationMaternityMidwifeQualitative study

Identifiers

PMID39962448
PMCPMC11834609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.