Effects of Hospital Accreditation on Medical Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Hospital accreditation has become a global trend for improving the quality of health care services. In Taiwan, nearly all hospitals are accredited. However, there is a paucity of literature on the effects of hospital accreditation on medical students and the universal applicability of hospital accreditation as developed in the West. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of hospital accreditation on medical students in Taiwan. METHOD: From 2010 to 2012, the authors conducted semistructured interviews with 34 senior, clinical year students at 11 different medical schools in Taiwan. Following a grounded theory approach, the authors transcribed and analyzed the transcripts concurrently with data collection in order to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: Aside from the intended positive effects of hospital accreditation, this study revealed several unintended impacts on medical students, including decreased clinical learning opportunities, increased trivial workload, and violation of professional integrity. Taiwanese students expressed doubt and frustration concerning the value of hospital accreditation and reflected on the cultural and systemic context in which accreditation takes place. Their commentary addressed the challenges associated with the globalization of hospital accreditation processes. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that, beyond the improvement of patient safety and quality assurance, medical educators must recognize the unintended negative effects of hospital accreditation on medical education and take into account differences in culture and health care systems amid the globalization of medicine.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".