International approaches for implementing accreditation programmes in different healthcare facilities: a comparative...

Healthcare accreditation programmes have been adopted internationally to maintain the quality and safety of services. Accreditation assesses the compliance of organizations to a series of standards. The evidence base supporting the benefits of accreditation is mixed, potentially influenced by differences in local implementation and operationalization of standards. Successful implementation is associated with optimizing regulation, funding, and government commitment. Implementation of accreditation is a complex intervention that needs to be tailored to meet contextual differences across settings. Comparing why and how accreditation is implemented across countries supports the effective implementation of new programmes and refinements to existing systems. This article presents four case studies from Australia, Botswana, Denmark, and Jordan to consider a geographic spread and mix of high- and upper-middle-income countries. The data were derived from a review of accreditation programme documents and follow-up discussions with directors of the accrediting bodies in the countries of interest. Each case study was summarized according to a standardized framework for comparison: (i) goals (why), (ii) programme implementation (how), (iii) outcomes based on pre-post measures (what), and (iv) lessons learned (enablers and barriers). The accreditation programmes were all introduced in the 2000s to improve quality and safety. Documents from each country outlined motivations for introducing an accreditation programme, which was predominantly initiated by the government. The programmes were adopted in demarcated healthcare sectors (e.g. primary care and hospital settings), with a mix of mandatory and voluntary approaches. Implementation support centred on the interpretation and operationalization of standards and follow-up on variation in compliance with standards, after announced surveys. Most standards focused on patient safety, patient centredness, and governance but differed between using standard sets on quality management or supportive processes for patient care. Methods for evaluation of programme success and outcomes measured varied. Frequently reported enablers of successful implementation included strong leadership and ownership of the process. A lack of awareness of quality and safety, insufficient training in quality improvement methods, and transfer of staff represented the most common challenges. This case analysis of accreditation programmes in a variety of countries highlights consistent strategies utilized, key enabling factors, barriers, and the influence of contextual differences. Our framework for describing why, how, what, and lessons learned demonstrates innovation and experimentation in approaches used across high- and upper-middle-income countries, hospital and primary care, and specialist clinics.