We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byAnderson Plaster
Modified about 1 year ago
© Joint Commission International Accreditation: International Perspectives and Evolution of Process Hospital Association Leadership Summit ● International Hospital Federation ● June 1-3, 2010 Karen H. Timmons President and CEO Paul vanOstenberg, DDS Senior Executive Director of International Accreditation and Standards Joint Commission International
© Joint Commission International Accreditation—Its Evolution 2
© Joint Commission International 3 The Hippocratic Oath: To Do No Harm
© Joint Commission International 4 Florence Nightingale: “The Lady with the Lamp”
© Joint Commission International 5 Ignaz Semmelweis: “The Savior of Mothers”
© Joint Commission International 6 Ernest A. Codman: End Result Theory “So I am called eccentric for saying in public that hospitals, if they want to be sure of improvement, –Must find out what their results are. –Must analyze their results, to find their strong and weak points. –Must compare their results with those of other hospitals. –Must welcome publicity not only for their successes, but for their errors.” 1
© Joint Commission International 7 The American College of Surgeons described the need for standardization of hospitals through accreditation as the need to: “Encourage those which are doing the best work, and to stimulate those of inferior standard to do better.”
© Joint Commission International 8 ACS: The Minimum Standard 1.Organized medical staff 2.Physicians and surgeons are licensed, competent, and ethical 3.With the governing body, the medical staff adopts rules, regulations, and policies governing the organization’s professional work 4.Accurate, complete, and accessible medical records 5.Competently supervised diagnostic and therapeutic facilities are available
© Joint Commission International Accreditation: A World Trend U.S., Canada, and Australia have the oldest accreditation systems Germany, France, Ireland, and Spain have new accreditation systems Japan, Jordan, Korea, Malaysia, and Thailand have new systems, with a government role The WHO, World Bank, and development banks recognize the accreditation model 9
© Joint Commission International Accreditation – A Definition Usually a voluntary process by which a government or non-government agency grants recognition to health care institutions which meet certain standards that require continuous improvement in structures, processes, and outcomes. 10
© Joint Commission International Licensure – A Definition A process by which a governmental authority grants permission to an individual practitioner or health care organization to operate or to engage in an occupation or profession. Licensure regulations are generally established to ensure that an organization or individual meets minimum standards to protect public health and safety. 11
© Joint Commission International Certification – A Definition A process by which an authorized body, either a governmental or non-governmental organization, evaluates and recognizes either an individual or an organization as meeting pre-determined requirements or criteria. 12
© Joint Commission International Strengths of Accreditation Methodology Offers external, objective evaluation Uses consensus standards Involves the health professions Is proactive, not reactive Is implemented organizationwide Focuses on systems, not individuals Stimulates quality culture in the organization Provides periodic re-evaluation against standards 13
© Joint Commission International 14 Accreditation System Standards of Performance Field Operations Decision Process Database Sources of Funding DesignInfrastructure Necessary Elements for a Health Care Accreditation System
© Joint Commission International Commonalities Related to How Accreditation Methodology is Applied Common goal: to improve the safety and quality of health care Used to validate compliance with consensus standards Increasingly using outcomes/indicators to assess compliance Results are shared publicly, increasing public awareness of—and often demand for—quality ISQua principles stimulate more commonality 15
© Joint Commission International Differences In How Accreditation Methodology is Applied Some use accreditation to validate continuous quality improvement, others to effect organizational change Some approaches involve providers and other key stakeholders in developing standards and other requirements; others do not In some countries, accreditation is a government mandate; in others, it is not—“inspection” versus accreditation In many cases, standards set country-specific norms 16
© Joint Commission International Differences (cont.) Some approaches involve a self-assessment component that is validated in a shorter onsite visit Some approaches require use of quality/safety measures, others do not Some use volunteers in onsite evaluation process Voluntary vs. mandatory 17
© Joint Commission International Other Methodologies EFQM Baldrige ISO Lean/Six Sigma “Best Practices”—IHI, Premier, etc Others 18
© Joint Commission International Accreditation— What Is the JCI Model? 19
© Joint Commission International 20 To improve the safety and quality of care in the international community through the provision of education, publications, consultation, evaluation, and accreditation services Mission of Joint Commission International
© Joint Commission International 21 Joint Commission International Global knowledge disseminator of quality improvement and patient safety 346 accredited organizations in 41 countries ISQua-accredited WHO Collaborating Centre for Patient Safety Solutions
© Joint Commission International 22 Mission Work at Three Levels Individual organizations Country-level efforts to assist Ministries of Health and Governmental Agencies to strengthen the role of quality oversight at the country level International level as a consensus builder and vehicle for sharing new knowledge on quality and safety in health care
© Joint Commission International 23 WHO Collaborating Centre for Patient Safety Solutions Facts about the Centre Developed Nine Patient Safety Solutions High 5s Project Collaboration between the Centre and WHO Patient Safety Programme Offers proactive solutions for patient safety based on empirical evidence, hard research and best practice Advances the entire continuum of patient safety System design and redesign Product safety Safety of services Environment of care
© Joint Commission International Joint Commission International Accreditation International Accreditation Philosophy Maximum achievable standards Patient-centered Culturally adaptable Process stimulates continuous improvement 24
© Joint Commission International 25 JCI’s Accreditation Tools Standards Evaluation Methodology Patient Safety Goals and Tools Data on Performance and Benchmarks Education
© Joint Commission International 26 JCI Standards A system framework Address all the important managerial and clinical functions of a health care organization Focus on patients in context of their family A balance of structure, process, and outcomes standards Set optimal, achievable expectations Set measurable expectations
© Joint Commission International 27 JCI Evidence Gathering Onsite Standards have multiple dimensions and thus have multiple sources of evidence –Policy – document review –Knowledge – staff training logs, interviews with staff –Practice – clinical observation, patient interviews –Documentation of practice – open and closed record review A good standard permits a convergent validity scoring process – all surveyors evaluating all types of evidence and reaching one score
© Joint Commission International Accreditation: What Do We Know About the Link to Quality? 28
© Joint Commission International Summary of Studies on the Impact of Accreditation Braithwaite et al: Accreditation performance significantly positively correlated with organizational culture and leadership but unrelated to organizational climate and consumer involvement El Jardali et al: Lebanese study showed hospital accreditation is a good tool for improving quality of care from nurses’ perspective but there is a need to assess quality based on patient outcome indicators Greenfield et al: Unannounced surveys and tracer methodology are effective but there is no empirical evidence in the literature to support their benefit in health care 29
© Joint Commission International Summary of Studies on the Impact of Accreditation, cont’d Greenfield, Braithwaite: Summary of studies of effectiveness of accreditation on clinical outcomes, with consistent findings showing accreditation positively impacted promoting change and professional development but inconsistent findings related to professions’ attitudes toward accreditation, organizational impact, financial impact, quality measures, and program assessment Pomey et al: Accreditation process is effective for introducing change but is subject to a learning cycle and learning curve 30
© Joint Commission International Summary of Studies on the Impact of Accreditation, cont’d Salmon et al: Accredited hospitals significantly improved their average with accreditation standards while no appreciable increase was observed in non-accredited hospitals Shaw: Too many variables to prove that inspection causes better clinical outcomes Touati, Pomey: Accreditation has positive impacts in France and Canada but current trends in evolution of accreditation threaten purpose of the accreditation process 31
© Joint Commission International Summary of Studies on the Impact of Accreditation, cont’d Wachter: Joint Commission’s NPSGs and use of tracer methodology are effective but ill-suited to drive progress in culture and communication Walshe et al: Although external review systems are widely used to promote quality improvement, their effectiveness is little researched Walshe, Shortell: Study results show consensus that health care regulation does have a significant impact by causing organizations to change their behavior, but less consensus about how beneficial impact was and whether it led to quality and PI 32
© Joint Commission International 33 Sentinel Event Experience to Date 90 8Events of wrong site surgery 804Inpatient suicides 734Operative/post op complications 580Deaths related to delay in treatment 547Events relating to medication errors 436Patient falls 360Retained foreign objects 256Assault/rape/homicide 209Perinatal death/injury 201Deaths of patients in restraints 146Transfusion-related events 145Infection-related events 102Fires 100Anesthesia-related events 1254 “Other” Sentinel events reviewed by The Joint Commission: 1995 – 2010 = 6782 RCAs
© Joint Commission International 34 Sentinel Event Alert
© Joint Commission International 35 Impact of Accreditation: Some Examples Medical Records First required in 1917, many considered the medical record unnecessary Today the medical record is the central point of information gathering for treatment decisions, research, patient monitoring, outcomes measurement, and even billing
© Joint Commission International 36 Impact of Accreditation: Some Examples Infection Control Programs In the mid-1950s, patients, especially surgery patients and newborns, acquired infections in epidemic proportions In the 1950s, hospitals were required to appoint infection control committees to direct activities aimed at curbing epidemics of infections Infection control programs were created that reduced the spread of devastating infectious agents
© Joint Commission International 37 Impact of Accreditation: Some Examples Fire Safety Non-smoking standards for hospitals were developed due to the adverse effects of passive non-smokers and significant fire hazards Advance Directives Protects patients from a life or death they would not have wished Requires organizations to establish Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) standards and request an advance directive from each patient so the individual’s wishes can be documented in the patient chart In the 1980s only 20% of hospitals addressed this issue; since the implementation of the standard, nearly 100% of accredited organizations are in compliance with the standard
© Joint Commission International 38 Studies Supporting the Value of Joint Commission Accreditation Devers, Pham, Liu: Accreditation requirements influenced hospitals’ efforts toward implementing patient safety initiatives, and hospital leaders ranked Joint Commission as most important driver of patient safety Hosford: Accreditation is effective in driving efforts to reduce errors Longo et al: Accreditation Improves Patient Safety
© Joint Commission International 39 Value and Impact of Accreditation Study Conducted with JCI-accredited and non-accredited hospitals in Jordan Pilot collected and analyzed data related to 6 managerial and economic quality indicators Results show statistically-significant improvements in the JCI-accredited hospitals on 3 indicators: –Return to ICU within 24 hours of discharge –Staff turnover per year –Completeness of medical records Total annual savings per accredited hospital = $87,600
© Joint Commission International 40 Completed Assessment of Inpatient Transfers “Qualified Rate”= “Actual Rate” Actual rate of recording of patient’s condition at assessment Clifford Hospital, Panyü, P.R. China
© Joint Commission International Ventilator Associated Pneumonia (VAP) Three JCI-accredited hospitals in India
© Joint Commission International Unscheduled Acute Care Readmissions % of unscheduled readmissions within 31 days for patients with primary Dx of heart failure or related condition Percentage Santa Chiara Hospital, Trento, Italy 42
© Joint Commission International So Far So Good These are individual reports, dealing with segments of hospital operations – Anecdotal accounts To study it systematically, –One Middle East hospital embarked on a study of the effect of the process, not of the outcome, before and after JCI accreditation 43
© Joint Commission International Study Details 400-bed Government Hospital Accredited in 2007 Studied before start of project to comply with JCI standards Repeat study 15 months later (before survey) Perceptions of stakeholders studied by questionnaires 100-point indices Hassan, DK & Kanji, GK: Measuring Quality Performance in Healthcare Kingsham Press, Chichester, UK 44
© Joint Commission International Findings of Study All stakeholder groups reported improvement in every dimension measured Overall improvement: 49% over baseline Main Areas of Improvement Leadership & management Quality improvement Patient safety Pt satisfaction & “delight” Ethical performance Documentation Organizational learning Organizational excellence Areas of Lesser Improvement Corporate structure Human resources management Staff satisfaction 45
© Joint Commission International 46 Accreditation: What Should The Future Look Like?
© Joint Commission International 47 A Revolution in Health Care Delivery Standardized Care Performance Measurement Transparent Reporting
© Joint Commission International What Should The Future of Accreditation Look Like? Should it be... Flexible and performance-based? Able to address issues related to coordination of care from one country to another? Extended beyond organizations to focus on individual providers? Able to provide reliable quality data? Adaptable to improved technologies? Sustainable? 48
© Joint Commission International Suggested Principles for Effective Regulation Improvement focus Responsiveness Proportionality and targeting Rigour and robustness Flexibility and consistency 49
© Joint Commission International Suggested Principles for Effective Regulation, cont’d Cost consciousness Openness and transparency Enforceability Accountability and independence Formative evaluation and review 50
© Joint Commission International Developing the Evidence Base for Accreditation New accreditation initiatives being introduced without high levels of transparency Introduce new initiatives as pilot projects that are moved into full-scale implementation with rigorous evaluation Publish findings—positive and negative—in peer-reviewed journals 51
© Joint Commission International Questions to Answer How do we identify the most effective and efficient framework for delivering quality care and services? How do we use accreditation to enhance the quality and safety of health care? How do we sustain accreditation, embedding QI into daily activities? How do we motivate all staff, particularly physicians? How do we ensure ROI? How do we develop health care organizations into high-reliability organizations? How do we involve patients? 52
© Joint Commission International Moving Forward with Accreditation 53
Developing and Using Institutional Plans. Christopher D. Lambert Associate Director of Commission Relations ACCSCT.
9-Feb-141 Monitoring & Evaluation in NIE Module 20.
WHO Strategy on Research for Health Rob Terry – Project Manager, RPC.
A Knowledge Innovation TM Project Proposal for Egypts Negotiating Body Making Negotiation a National Duty 26 June 2005, RITSEC.
Integrating Higher Education Planning and Assessment: Concepts and Strategies Michael F. Middaugh Assistant Vice President for Institutional Research and.
Health & Safety Management Health & Safety Management for Quarries Topic Four.
The Project Cycle Management Course presented by Simon Pluess World Alliance of YMCAs.
ISO INTRODUCTION In the present day, environmental matter is not limited only in one country or specific area. The environmental impact effects.
PLANNING THE AUDIT Individual audits must be properly planned to ensure: Appropriate and sufficient evidence is obtained to support the auditors opinion;
Sheryl Abelew MSN RN. Chapter 5 Initiating and Implementing Change.
Final Report – November 3, 2003 Organization of American States Management Study of the Operations of the General Secretariat Part I – Executive Summary.
Presentation title: 32pt Arial Regular, black Recommended maximum length: 1 line A Mandatory Management/Leadership Development Framework for Doctors Professor.
Accreditation Visit to Name Title. Welcome! Outline of this presentation Background General notes on accreditation Goals of the CEAB Objectives of the.
So You Want to Use the Baldrige Criteria? Prepared for TNCPE Customers by Dan Jordan 2009/2010 Criteria.
Department of Graduate Medical Education (GME) Now That We Have an Institutional Report Card---How Do We Use It? Conference Session: SES ACGME.
Q uality I mprovement for MDs The Good Hospital Practice Training Series 2009 The Medical City.
The Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH): Building a Better Health Care Model.
CORE Evidence-/based Regulation: A Regulatory Performance Measurement System.
Moshe Kam* and Michael Lightner** * Robert Quinn Professor and Head; Electrical and Computer Engineering, Drexel University **Professor and Chair; Electrical,
Monitoring and Evaluating Gender-Based Violence Prevention and Mitigation Programs Anastasia J. Gage Melissa Dunn MODULE II.
CBR 301: Using Community-Based Research to Affect Public Policy.
Learning Objectives 7.1 Describe the organizing process and how formal and informal organizations differ. 7.2 Identify some common types of organizational.
Module 2: National IEA process design and organization.
Capacity development & learning in evaluation Uganda Evaluation Week 19 th to 223 rd May 2014.
Professional Development for School Leaders Technical Assistance Phase 1 Self-Assessment and Plan Design.
Anita M. Baker, Ed.D. Building Evaluation Capacity Presentation Slides for Participatory Evaluation Essentials: An Updated Guide for Non-Profit Organizations.
Development of CP Policies: Approaches and Instruments Guidelines for the CP Centres UNIDO NCPC Programme April 2002.
Teacher Evaluation in Portugal OECD Review The main conclusions and policy directions Presentation by Deborah Roseveare and Paulo Santiago, Directorate.
Reading Between the Rules: The New Medical Error Reporting and Patient Safety Requirements Cindy Bednar, R.N. Director of Licensing Programs Health Facility.
100 College Street Room 213 The Banting Institute University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario M5G 1L5 Tel (416) Fax (416)
© 2016 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.