The unrecognized power of health services accreditation: more than external evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While it is widely recognized that accreditation enables an organization to improve its performance and sustain a culture of quality, changing healthcare practices to align with evidence-informed guidelines (clinical and administrative) is a complex process that takes time. The true value of accreditation lies in its contribution to healthcare safety and quality as a means to prompt and support 'knowledge to action', a key value of accreditation that 'has yet to be articulated'. Using the 'knowledge to action' cycle, a planned action framework, we illustrate that accreditation is a knowledge translation (KT) or implementation intervention that seeks to improve and increase the uptake of evidence in healthcare organizations. The accreditation components, including the quality framework, standards, self-assessment process and on-site survey visit, ultimately serve to improve quality, decreasing variation in practice and strengthening a culture of quality. With a unique perspective and alignment obtained through the implementation lens, we examine the accreditation process and components relative to the 'knowledge to action cycle' with implications for enhancing the value of accreditation beyond current appreciation to both accreditation bodies worldwide and those organizations that participate in accreditation programs. Until organizations and accreditation bodies embrace the accreditation process as a knowledge to action intervention to bring about meaningful and sustained change, the full benefits of the process will not be optimized nor achieved.
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 | 0.608 | 0.681 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.043 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".