MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3100990688 · doi:10.29252/payesh.19.5.523

Hospital accreditation method: A comparative study

2020· article· en· W3100990688 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ali Mohammad Mosadeghrad, Ebrahim Jaafaripooyan, Taraneh Yousefinezhadi, Sima Keykhani

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Monitor Journal of the Iranian Institute for Health Sciences Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationMedical educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective(s): Hospital accreditation is “an external evaluation of a hospital’s structures, processes, outputs and outcomes by an independent professional accreditation body using pre-established optimum standards”. Accreditation is a strategy for ensuring the quality, safety, effectiveness and efficiency of hospital services. The efficacy of an accreditation program depends on the validity of the accreditation governance, methods, standards, and the surveyors. Iranchr('39')s hospital accreditation system faces some challenges. Benchmarking leading international accreditation bodies’ methods benefit the Iranian hospital accreditation system. Hence, this study aimed to compare the Iranian hospital accreditation methods with the world leading international hospital accreditation bodies’ methods. Methods: A comparative research was used in this study in 2019. The Iranian hospital accreditation methods was compared with those of the Joint commission international, the Accreditation Canada international and the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards International. Framework analysis was used for the qualitative data analysis in this study. Results: While the Iranian hospital accreditation program is governmental and compulsory, the three leading international accreditation programs are private, not for profit, and voluntary. While Iran’s hospital accreditation method includes the self-assessment and the on-site survey, the other countries use self-assessment, on-site survey, un-noticed survey, periodic review, examining key performance indicators and measuring patient satisfaction. The international accreditation award levels include “Fully accredited”, Provisionally accredited” and “Not accredited” and the accreditation certification is valid for 3-4 years. The Iran’s accreditation certificate is valid for 2 years and consisted of 7 levels from “Excellent” to “Not accredited”. Conclusion: Complementary evaluation methods should be used to strengthen the validity and reliability of Iran’s hospital accreditation program. Furthermore, the time period of the accreditation certificate validity should be increased and the awards levels should be decreased.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.658
GPT teacher head0.680
Teacher spread0.022 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Monitor Journal of the Iranian Institute for Health Sciences ResearchSame topicHealthcare Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207