English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background Little is known about whether repeated cycles of hospital accreditation are a robust method to improve quality of care continuously. Objective We aimed to examine the association between compliance with consecutive cycles of accreditation and quality of in-hospital care. Methods We conducted a Danish nationwide population-based study including patients aged 18 years treated for acute stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart failure or hip fracture at public, non-psychiatric hospitals. From 2012 to 2015, two cycles of national hospital accreditation were completed, resulting in 12 high and 14 low compliant hospitals (Low = partially accredited in both cycles). Our outcome measure was quality of in-hospital care measured by 39 process performance measures (PPMs), reflecting recommendations from the national clinical guidelines by adherence to (i) individual PPMs and (ii) the full bundle of PPMs (all-or-none). We computed adjusted odds ratios (ORs) using logistic regression based on robust standard error estimation for cluster sampling of data at hospital level. Results In total, 78 387 patient pathways covering 508 816 processes were included, of which 47% had been delivered at high compliant hospitals and 53% at low compliant hospitals, respectively. Compliance with consecutive cycles was not associated with improved quality of in-hospital care (individual: OR = 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77–1.10; All-or-none: OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.66–1.15). However, in the second cycle alone, patients treated at partially accredited hospitals had a lower adherence than patients treated at fully accredited hospitals (Individual: OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.71–0.99; All-or-none: OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.59–1.03). The association was particularly strong among patients treated at partially accredited hospitals required to submit additional documentation. Conclusion Compliance with consecutive cycles of hospital accreditation in Denmark was not associated with improved quality of in-hospital care. However, compliance with the second cycle alone was associated with improved quality of in-hospital care.

Consecutive cycles of accreditation and quality of in-hospital care: a Danish population-based study