[The accreditation program in hospitals: Clalit Health Services experience].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accreditation is a process for assessing the healthcare organization, to determine if it meets a set of requirements designed to improve quality of care. White research regarding the benefits of accreditation is lacking, accreditation has been shown to be associated with promoting quality. Accreditation differs from licensing and quality assurance audits such as ISO. In various countries, the accreditation processes have been in operation in heaLthcare organization for decades. In the U.S.A., the Leading organization for accreditation of healthcare organizations is the Joint Commission. Accreditation Canada is the leading authority for accreditation in Canada. The Australian Council for Healthcare Standards and the King's Fund in the United Kingdom are other noted authorities for accreditation. Several European countries have initiated accreditation programs and some are in the process of implementing such programs. In Israel, no national accreditation system exists, although the Ministry of Health conducts audits on specific issues, and for relicensing of hospitals, and the Scientific Council of the Israel Medical Association conducts audits for recognizing a department as suitable for residency. Clalit Health Services is the first healthcare organization in Israel to gain Joint Commission International (JCI) accreditation. Three hospitals run by Clalit (Ha'emek, Meir and Soroka) have been accredited by JCI, and another four are in the process of accreditation by JCI. An organized national accreditation scheme in Israel is a challenging process, yet it appears to be a central act for promoting the quality of care in hospitals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".