↓ Skip to main content

The impact of hospital accreditation on quality measures: an interrupted time series analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The impact of hospital accreditation on quality measures: an interrupted time series analysis
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0784-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Subashnie Devkaran, Patrick N O’Farrell

Abstract

Developing countries frequently use hospital accreditation to guarantee quality and patient safety. However, implementation of accreditation standards is demanding on organisations. Furthermore, the empirical literature on the benefits of accreditation is sparse and this is the first empirical interrupted time series analysis designed to examine the impact of healthcare accreditation on hospital quality measures. The study was conducted in a 150-bed multispecialty hospital in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. The quality performance outcomes were observed over a 48 months period. The quality performance differences were compared across monthly intervals between two time segments, 1 year pre- accreditation (2009) and 3 years post-accreditation (2010, 2011 and 2012) for the twenty-seven quality measures. The principal data source was a random sample of 12,000 patient records drawn from a population of 50,000 during the study period (January 2009 to December 2012). Each month (during the study period), a simple random sample of 24 percent of patient records was selected and audited, resulting in 324,000 observations. The measures (structure, process and outcome) are related to important dimensions of quality and patient safety. The study findings showed that preparation for the accreditation survey results in significant improvement as 74% of the measures had a significant positive pre-accreditation slope. Accreditation had a larger significant negative effect (48% of measures) than a positive effect (4%) on the post accreditation slope of performance. Similarly, accreditation had a larger significant negative change in level (26%) than a positive change in level (7%) after the accreditation survey. Moreover, accreditation had no significant impact on 11 out of the 27 measures. However, there is residual benefit from accreditation three years later with performance maintained at approximately 90%, which is 20 percentage points higher than the baseline level in 2009. Although there is a transient drop in performance immediately after the survey, this study shows that the improvement achieved from accreditation is maintained during the three year accreditation cycle.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 17%
Other 8 7%
Lecturer 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 41 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 18%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 4%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 41 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 May 2015.
All research outputs
#12,802,526
of 22,797,621 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,208
of 7,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,997
of 264,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#54
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,797,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,242 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.