A Standard, Guideline, or Criteria Supporting the Need for Accreditation

Accreditation refers to the process of formally evaluating an organization against practice standards that are considered best. This evaluation is both a process and a status. An organization must meet the quality standards that are formulated by an accrediting body (Knopf, 2016). The agencies also have the mandate to review themselves against the presently acknowledged quality standards which are regarded as the best by accrediting bodies. Accreditation ensures that organizations manage their resources efficiently and can provide quality services to stakeholders.

Specific Standard, Guideline, or Criteria

Criteria for Accreditation

The mission statement is provided by the body that offers the accreditation. It entails the results expected to be changed by the organizations regarding the organizational competency, performance and the general outcome of the programs in the group. Accreditation body incorporates the programs the organization requires for the attainment of the professional practice and how to narrow the gaps that may exist to attain the standards expected from them. Generation of the activities by the accreditation providers that are devised to intervene to bring change in the organization's performance, competency, and output as stipulated in the mission statement. The activities format is chosen by the providers that they deem best for setting goals, vision and objectives and the outcome of the activity.

Standards

The accreditation body which is mandated to provide accreditation must confirm that the decisions to provide the accreditation are made based on merits and do not involve any form of corruption and are free from control by the interest of the commercial body or government. This is to ensure that meritocracy is adopted in the accreditation of organizations as they meet the stipulated standards as described in the international standards.

In accreditation of an organization, commercial interest should not acquire the mandate of the partners that are not accredited regarding connected provider relationship. This is to ensure that the group operates well within the guidelines established for accreditation without any violation. It also ensures that those partners that are not accredited do not take advantage of work as certified without meeting the standards required of them. They may provide low-quality services and goods at the expense of the stakeholders.

Accreditation body, which is the provider, to ensure that all people who are in the capacity to control the content of the organization's activities disclose the authentic relationships of finance with a commercial interest to the accreditation body. This is to ensure that conflict of interest is managed and prevented (Hut et al., 2017). Refusal to disclose the financial relationships warrant an automatic disqualification thus inability to control, develop and manage an organization's activity. It is the mandate of a provider to establish mechanisms for resolving conflicts.

An accreditation body must ensure that the use the support from the commercial is utilized very well and accordingly by the organization. It is the jurisdiction of the provider to make the necessary decision concerning disbursement and disposition of the support from the commercial sectors. The entire aid is awarded knowledge of the accreditation body which approves it. Documentation of the conditions, terms, and purpose of the support is ensured in a written agreement between the supporters and the organization. Commercial interest is specified in the written agreement.

The organization's content of the activity to promote delivery of quality services and not to facilitate a particular proprietary interest in the business of commercial interest. Therapeutic options must be considered. If the organization's content entails trade names, this largely contributes to such impartiality.

Guidelines

Accreditation process needs adopting the standards, identifying the authoritative body and the institutional mechanisms of assessing the organizations to confirm if they are complying with the rules. The guideline ensures that the group strictly adheres to the standards and the accreditation body follows the criteria for accreditation an organization.

Critiques and Analysis

Despite the availability of the standards, criteria, and guidelines for accreditation, some organization still manage to be accredited without meeting the stipulated guidelines and standards. This is because of the level of corruption in the various nations. In some cases, the rules and criteria are set for formality but do not play a significant role in accreditation of an organization (Wickersham & Basey, 2016). Many agencies across the nation do not meet the international standards but are accredited and certified courtesy of the accreditation bodies. This is an affirmation that these measures, criteria or guidelines do not have a significant role in the determination of the organizations to be accredited.

Conclusion

There is a vast and dangerous disconnection between the regulatory authorities' findings and agencies of accreditation as both are mandated to oversight the effective care and ensuring that the organizations provide quality services to the stakeholders as they meet the international and domestic standards (Bardsley, 2017). It is a role of the accreditation body to ensure that aspect of the social norming in improving the organization's services such health care, proprietary nature of data collection by the bodies charged with accrediting, the effectiveness of effort of the present quality assurance is limited by the absence of communication in the government regulation sector.

References

Bardsley, M. (2017). Learning how to make routinely available data useful in guiding regulatory oversight of hospital care. BMJ Quality & Safety, 26(2), 90.

Hut-Mossel, L., Welker, G., Ahaus, K., & Gans, R. (2017). Understanding how and why audits work: Protocol for a realist review of audit programmes to improve hospital care. BMJ Open, 7(6)

Knopf, A. (2016). Examine the trends in accreditation. Behavioral Healthcare, 36(4), 22-25.

Wickersham, M. E., & Basey, S. (2016). Is accreditation sufficient? A case study and argument for transparency when government regulatory authority is delegated. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 39(2), 245-282.