Overview of (inter)national accreditation in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective to outline the panorama of national and international Accreditation in Brazil. Method a descriptive study, of quantitative approach and documental source. The survey fields were the unrestricted access online pages of the following accrediting methodologies: National Accreditation Organization (ONA), Joint Commission International (JCI), Accreditation Canada International (ACI), and QMentum International, besides the page of the National Registry of Health Establishments (CNES) and/or institutional sites. Variables were extracted: type of institution/health care facility; sector management regime; location; level of certification (in case of a seal granted by ONA), and size (for hospitals). Descriptive statistical analysis was used. Results data from 1,122 certifications was obtained, especially from ONA (77.2%) and QMentum International (13.2%). Hospitals prevailed in the Accreditation adherence (35.3%), mainly the large ones (60.3%) and from the private sector (75.8%). There was a concentration of quality seals in the Southeast region of Brazil (64.5%), and the North region presented the lowest proportion of certified establishments (3%). Conclusions and implications for practice the Accreditation certifications in Brazil refer to the national methodology, focusing on the private hospital area and the Southeast region of the country. The mapping outlined can support assertiveness in incentive policies for quality management and external evaluation in Brazil.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".