Accreditation: a cultural control strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to describe and understand the effects of the accreditation process on organizational control and quality management practices in two Quebec primary-care health organizations. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A multiple-case longitudinal study was conducted taking a mixed qualitative/quantitative approach. An analytical model was developed of the effects of the accreditation process on the type of organizational control exercised and the quality management practices implemented. The data were collected through group interviews, semi-directed interviews of key informers, non-participant observations, a review of the literature, and structured questionnaires distributed to all the employees working in both institutions. FINDINGS: The accreditation process has fostered the implementation of consultation mechanisms in self-assessment teams. Improving assessments of client satisfaction was identified as a prime objective but, in terms of the values promoted in organizations, accreditation has little effect on the perceptions of employees not directly involved in the process. As long as not all staff members have integrated the basis for accreditation and its outcomes, the accreditation process appears to remain an external, bureaucratic control instrument. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This study provides a theoretical model for understanding organizational changes brought about by accreditation of primary services. Through self-assessment of professional values and standards, accreditation may foster better quality management practices.
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 | 0.029 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".