Accreditation in Hospitals - Research Paper Sample

Accreditation in a hospital setting can be described as a formal process through which a recognized body, an example being the Joint Commission, satisfy a health facility. Such agencies are often non-governmental hired to perform the function of assessing health facilities to determine whether or not health care organizations meet all the published and predetermined standards. These standards of accreditation are regarded as achievable and optimally designed to foster improvement efforts within the organizations. A decision regarding the accreditation of a particular hospital is made after a periodic evaluation on the site by a peer reviewers team usually conducted after every two to three years.

The process of accreditation is a continual one despite the fact that the accrediting agencies conduct surveys on-site periodically. In this procedure, the accredited facilities are supposed to observe the pre-defined standards, as well as create incremental enhancements. As such, a healthcare facility with no accreditation might be justifiably proud of attaining the status of accreditation. Similarly, a facility that had been previously accredited may get ready for the next survey on site. However, such a facility cannot be accredited immediately by the same body. The latter is a vivid representation of the erroneous and somehow worrying approach taken by some health facilities towards accreditation. Many of the facilities take the accreditation as akin to an examination to be done at the end of each cycle of accreditation with very little done in between the exams (Bardsley, 2017). Many of these facilities tend to use the process as a tool of marketing and not for its original purpose such improving quality and safety of care.

A critical look at the above information, one may see the process of accreditation as one that serves no true purpose. However, the average accreditation costs often range from agency to agency and hospital to hospital. According to the Joint Commission website, a typical accreditation process takes approximately three years. During this period, the commission subdivides an organizations accreditation fees over the three years using a yearly fee (The importance of avoiding denial of accreditation, 2016). A survey fee is also included often in the first year considering that that is the time that the commission incurs a lot of costs to send surveyors to a healthcare facility. This means that the facilities are expected to pay close to sixty percent of their accreditation costs within the first year of the period and about twenty percent over the rest of the period. For some of these facilities, their survival is dependent on reimbursement for treatments.

There are Certain financial benefits that accredited physicians, and health facilities enjoy. This is seen in cases involving insurance companies among other such organizations. In many of these cases, accreditation might be a requirement before facility participation is allowed in bidding contracts or managing care plans. In some cases, medical insurance covering hospitals might decide to offer a discount to health facilities that are accredited and can maintain the status. The Joint Commission on its website has listed several liability insurers that offer discounts to accredited health care facilities (The Joint Commission, 2017). There is also a possibility of particular state regulatory agency accepting an assessment from another organization to allow an organization to operate within the state. In such cases, the facility can save a lot of revenue considering that it does not have to pay the two accrediting agencies for a similar job.

Another benefit associated with accreditation is that it enhances the process of staff education and recruitment, as well as development. Accreditation also assesses every managerial aspect and provides education regarding best practices to improve operations. Accreditation has also been shown to create a competitive advantage within the health industry, as well as strengthening the confidence of the public in the quality and safety of patient care. In general, the process improves reduction of risk and management and also aids in strengthening the safety of the patients, thereby creating a culture of patient safety.

The downside of accreditation is that certain healthcare facilities lack any continued quality assurance plan once the assessment has been completed. The process has for long been treated just like a college student preparing for an examination. Plans are, however, being developed to overcome this exam like mentality and improve the quality of care for the next patient and not necessarily for the subsequent survey. Some agencies involved in the accreditation exercise have started conducting consistent resurveys on the unannounced basis (Knopf, 2016). This exercise is sure to benefit the patient even more and not just the organization. In the long run, the facilities also stand to benefit regarding increased revenue considering that they are likely to retain their customers with improved services.

Looking at all these facts, the question of whether or not the process is worth arises. Accreditation is the best tool for quality improvement. The process proven success outweighs the costs involved. However, there are various reasons that accreditation does not always translate into improved care (Wickersham & Basey, 2016). Many of the standards required do not in any way assess the day to day activities in care of patients. Further, the wide range of healthcare organization compliance with a particular set of standards in a single accreditation level might dilute any variations in quality. Another instance is when surveyors exhibit a certain level of discretion when deciding how to look for the potential problem when conducting a survey.

Being well aware that accreditation is an established methodology to ensure the quality of care within healthcare facilities, I would be very careful as an administrator not to take simple cosmetic measures in ensuring safety and quality of care. As an administrator, I would ensure that every patient and even visitor is treated with the utmost respect and best service. This will ensure increased confidence in the general public regarding the hospital. It has been proven that public reporting on the performance of a hospital has the potential to influence patient care quality and consequently get it easily accredited. I would also implement mock surveys where I would ensure that it occurs about six months before the main accreditation survey. The mock survey would act as a final checkpoint in readiness for the accreditation. I would also make sure that the physical facilities such as the building are in good shape with the proper fire safety equipment, emergency preparedness among other crucial factors.

The most important thing is to ensure that the preparedness for an accreditation survey ought not to be just a readiness for an exam but rather a wakeup call to improve the patient care safety and quality. Efforts ought to be made to instill patient confidence in hospitals through proper accreditation. The usual practice of making temporary improvements before a survey and using the exercise as a marketing tool makes accreditation lose its main value and purpose. This ends up in undermining the general publics trust in the healthcare providers.

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.

Knopf, A. (2016). 10 steps to prepare for accreditation. Behavioral Healthcare, 36(4), 24-25.

The importance of avoiding denial of accreditation. (2016). Briefings on Accreditation and Quality, 27(9), 1-4.

The Joint Commission introduces revised pain assessment and management standard for accredited hospitals. (2017). Professional Services Close Up. http://www.jointcommission.org/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.