Unannounced versus announced hospital surveys: a nationwide cluster-randomized controlled trial

Lars Holger Ehlers, Katherina Beltoft Simonsen, Morten Berg Jensen, Gitte Sand Rasmussen, Anne Vingaard Olesen, Lars Holger Ehlers, Katherina Beltoft Simonsen, Morten Berg Jensen, Gitte Sand Rasmussen, Anne Vingaard Olesen

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of unannounced versus announced surveys in detecting non-compliance with accreditation standards in public hospitals.

Design: A nationwide cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Setting and participants: All public hospitals in Denmark were invited. Twenty-three hospitals (77%) (3 university hospitals, 5 psychiatric hospitals and 15 general hospitals) agreed to participate.

Intervention: Twelve hospitals were randomized to receive unannounced surveys (intervention group) and eleven hospitals to receive announced surveys (control group). We hypothesized that the hospitals receiving the unannounced surveys would reveal a higher degree of non-compliance with accreditation standards than the hospitals receiving announced surveys. Nine surveyors trained and employed by the Danish Institute for Quality and Accreditation in Healthcare (IKAS) were randomized into teams and conducted all surveys.

Main outcome measure: The outcome was the surveyors' assessment of the hospitals' level of compliance with 113 performance indicators-an abbreviated set of the Danish Healthcare Quality Programme (DDKM) version 2, covering organizational standards, patient pathway standards and patient safety standards. Compliance with performance indicators was analyzed using binomial regression analysis with bootstrapped robust standard errors.

Results: In all, 16 202 measurements were acceptable for data analysis. The risk of observing non-compliance with performance indicators for the intervention group compared with the control group was statistically insignificant (risk difference (RD) = -0.6 percentage points [-2.51-1.31], P = 0.54). A converged analysis of the six patient safety critical standards, requiring 100% compliance to gain accreditation status revealed no statistically significant difference (RD = -0.78 percentage points [-4.01-2.44], P = 0.99).

Conclusions: Unannounced hospital surveys were not more effective than announced surveys in detecting quality problems in Danish hospitals.

Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02348567, https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT02348567?term=NCT02348567.

Keywords: certification/accreditation of hospitals; experimental research; measurement of quality.

© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Participant flow diagram representing the number of clusters that were randomly assigned to either the control group (announced surveys) or intervention group (unannounced surveys).

References

    1. Greenfield D, Pawsey M, Braithwaite J.. Accreditation: a global mechanism to promote quality and safety In: Sollecito WA, Johnson JK (eds). McLaughlin and Kaluzny's Continuous Quality Improvement in Health Care. Jones & Bartlett Learning: Burlington, 2013.
    1. Fortune T, O'Connor E, Donaldson B. Guidance on Designing Healthcare External Evaluation Programmes Including Accreditation. Dublin: The International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2015.
    1. Greenfield D, Travaglia J, Braithwaite J, et al. Unannounced Surveys and Tracer Methodology: Literature Review [Internet]. The University of New South Wales, Centre for Clinical Governance Research. A Report for the Australian Accreditation Research Network: Examining Future Health Care Accreditation Research.; 2007. pp. 1–30. , ISBN: 9780733425462
    1. The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards Piloting Innovative Accreditation Methodologies: Short Notice Surveys. Commonwealth of Australia: The Department of Health and Ageing on behalf of the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. 2009
    1. Greenfield D, Moldovan M, Westbrook M et al. .. An empirical test of short notice surveys in two accreditation programmes. Int J Qual Heal care 2012;24:65–71.
    1. Hinchcliff R, Greenfield D, Moldovan M et al. . Narrative synthesis of health service accreditation literature. BMJ Qual Saf 2012;21:979–91.
    1. Brubakk K, Vist GE, Bukholm G et al. . A systematic review of hospital accreditation: the challenges of measuring complex intervention effects. BMC Health Serv Res 2015;15:280.
    1. Greenfield D, Braithwaite J. Health sector accreditation: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care 2008;20:172–83.
    1. Grepperud S. Is the hospital decision to seek accreditation an effective one. Int J Health Plann Manage 2015;30:E56–68.
    1. Towers TJ, Clarck J. Pressure and performance: buffering capacity and the cyclical impact of accreditation inspections on risk-adjusted mortality. J Healthc Manag 2014;59:323–35.
    1. Schmaltz SP, Williams SC, Chassin MR et al. . Hospital performance on national quality measures and the association with Joint Commission Accreditation. J Hosp Med 2011;6:454–61.
    1. Simonsen K, Olesen V, Jensen M et al. . Unannounced or announced periodic hospital surveys: a study protocol for a nationwide cluster-randomised, controlled trial. Comp Eff Res 2015;5:1–7.
    1. Institut for Kvalitet og Akkreditering i Sundhedsvæsenet. 2014, Denmark. (30 October 2015, date last accessed).
    1. International Society for Quality in Health Care. (30 October 2015, date last accessed).
    1. Shaw CD, Kutryba B, Braithwaite J et al. . Sustainable healthcare accreditation: messages from Europe in 2009. Int J Qual Health Care 2010;22:341–50.
    1. Shaw CD, Braithwaite J, Moldovan M et al. . Profiling health-care accreditation organizations: an international survey. Int J Qual Health Care 2013;25:222–31.
    1. Triantafillou P. Against all Odds? Understanding the emergence of accreditation of the Danish hospital. Soc Sci Med 2014;101:78–85.
    1. Ehlers LH, Jensen MB, Simonsen KB et al. . Attitudes towards accreditation among hospital employees in Denmark: a cross sectional survey. Int J Qual Health Care. (under review).
    1. Campell M, Piaggio G, Elburne D. Altman DG. Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ 2012;345:e5661.
    1. Joint Commission Resources Applied Tracer Methodology: Tips and Strategies for Continuous System Improvement. Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois, USA: The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, 2007.
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S et al. . Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008;337:1655–63.
    1. Shojania KG. Conventional evaluations of improvement interventions: more trials or just more tribulations. BMJ Qual Saf 2013;22:881–4. .
    1. OECD OECD Reviews of Health Care Quality: Denmark. Paris, France: Health Division, 2013.
    1. Mainz J, Kristensen S, Bartels P. Quality improvement and accountability in the Danish health care system. Int J Qual Health Care 2015;27:1–5. .

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera