Conceptualizing performance in accreditation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the conceptualization of performance underlying different accreditation manuals. DATA SOURCES: Accreditation manuals were selected from the 2003 WHO report titled 'Quality and Accreditation in Healthcare Services'. We used manuals from WHO-listed countries that most influenced the standards: Canada, France, the USA and Australia. The fifth manual is published by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). EXTRACTION METHODS: Standards from each manual were classified by two independent reviewers. The coding grid, which was based on a Parsonian-based integrative framework on performance, was composed of performance dimensions and their interlinks/alignments. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The four dimensions of quality, goal-attainment, adaptation to the external environment and values, along with their alignments, were given differing levels of importance in the five manuals. The Australian manual emphasizes all four dimensions and their alignments. The PAHO accreditation focuses mainly on quality. The manuals from Canada, France and the USA fall somewhere between the two accreditation extremes of complete versus one-dimensional. Finally, we present a taxonomy of the conceptualization of performance in accreditation manuals that distinguishes between quality-oriented and alignment-oriented accreditation manuals. CONCLUSIONS: Specific conceptualizations of performance underlying accreditation manuals may not be neutral. Perhaps, more normative accreditation manuals are associated with authoritative management styles, or more balanced accreditation manuals with comprehensive management styles. Our comparative analysis is a first step toward better understanding the relationship between the conceptualization of performance and the management style adopted in a particular healthcare organization. This relationship could help explain the variation observed in healthcare organization performance.
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 | 0.039 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".