An empirical test of accreditation patient journey surveys: Randomized trial

Greenfield, D; Hinchcliff, R; Westbrook, M; Jones, D; Low, L; Johnston, B; Banks, M; Pawsey, M; Moldovan, M; Westbrook, J; Braithwaite, J

An empirical test of accreditation patient journey surveys: Randomized trial

Greenfield, D Hinchcliff, R

Westbrook, M Jones, D Low, L Johnston, B Banks, M Pawsey, M Moldovan, M Westbrook, J Braithwaite, J

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2012, 24 (5), pp. 495 - 500
Issue Date:: 2012-10-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	mzs035.pdf	Submitted Version	148.93 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Greenfield, D	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Hinchcliff, R https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9920-4211	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Westbrook, M	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Jones, D	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Low, L	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Johnston, B	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Banks, M	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Pawsey, M	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Moldovan, M	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Westbrook, J	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Braithwaite, J	en_US
dc.date.issued	2012-10-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 2012, 24 (5), pp. 495 - 500	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1353-4505	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/115362
dc.description.abstract	Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of utilizing the patient journey survey (PJS) method in healthcare accreditation processes. Design: Randomized trial of the PJS method in parallel with the current accreditation survey (CAS) method of the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS). Setting: Acute healthcare organizations in Australia. Participants: Seventeen organizations, 28 organizational staff, nine surveyors and 38 patients. Main Outcome Measures: The results of each surveying method were compared. Participants provided feedback, via 18 interviews and 40 questionnaire surveys, about the benefits and disadvantages of a PJS compared to a CAS. Results: The PJS method is not as comprehensive as the CAS method for accreditation assessment. In matched assessments the majority of items were rated lower by the PJS method than by the CAS. PJSs were shown to be appropriate for assessing mandatory clinical criteria, but were less effective for assessing corporate and support criteria. The two methods diverged in their final assessments of which organizations met the accreditation threshold. Participants endorsed the use of PJSs within accreditation processes. Conclusions: The PJS methodology complements but is not a substitute for existing accreditation methods. There is significant stakeholder support for the inclusion of the PJS method within the current accreditation programme. © The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	International Journal for Quality in Health Care	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1093/intqhc/mzs035	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Health Policy & Services	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Humans	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Accreditation	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Patient Satisfaction	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Delivery of Health Care	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Quality of Health Care	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Australia	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Surveys and Questionnaires	en_US
dc.title	An empirical test of accreditation patient journey surveys: Randomized trial	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	5	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	24	en_US
utslib.for	1117 Public Health and Health Services	en_US
utslib.for	11 Medical and Health Sciences	en_US
utslib.for	17 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	5	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	24	en_US

Abstract:

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of utilizing the patient journey survey (PJS) method in healthcare accreditation processes. Design: Randomized trial of the PJS method in parallel with the current accreditation survey (CAS) method of the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS). Setting: Acute healthcare organizations in Australia. Participants: Seventeen organizations, 28 organizational staff, nine surveyors and 38 patients. Main Outcome Measures: The results of each surveying method were compared. Participants provided feedback, via 18 interviews and 40 questionnaire surveys, about the benefits and disadvantages of a PJS compared to a CAS. Results: The PJS method is not as comprehensive as the CAS method for accreditation assessment. In matched assessments the majority of items were rated lower by the PJS method than by the CAS. PJSs were shown to be appropriate for assessing mandatory clinical criteria, but were less effective for assessing corporate and support criteria. The two methods diverged in their final assessments of which organizations met the accreditation threshold. Participants endorsed the use of PJSs within accreditation processes. Conclusions: The PJS methodology complements but is not a substitute for existing accreditation methods. There is significant stakeholder support for the inclusion of the PJS method within the current accreditation programme. © The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/115362