Can accreditation work as a tool for quality improvement in public health? A critical review

Public health departments play an important role in promoting and preserving the health of communities. The lack of a system to ensure their quality and accountability led to the development of a national voluntary accreditation program by Public Health Accreditation Board (PHAB). The concept that accreditation will lead to quality improvement in public health which will ultimately lead to healthy communities seems intuitive but lacks a robust body of evidence. A critical review of literature was conducted to explore if accreditation can lead to quality improvement in public health. The articles were selected from publically available databases using a specific set of criteria for inclusion, exclusion, and appraisal. To understand the relationship between accreditation and quality improvement, the potential strengths and limitations of accreditation process were evaluated. Recommendations for best practices are suggested so that public health accreditation can yield maximum benefits. A logic model framework to help depict the impact of accreditation on various levels of public health outcomes is also discussed in this thesis. The literature review shows that existing accreditation programs in other industries show limited but encouraging evidence that accreditation will improve quality and strengthen the delivery of public health services. While progress in introducing accreditation in public health can be informed by other accredited industries, the public health field has its own set of challenges. Providing incentives, creating financing strategies, and having a strong leadership will allow greater access to accreditation by all public health departments. The suggested recommendations include that continuous evaluation, public participation, systems approach, clear vision, and dynamic standards should become hallmarks of the accreditation process. Understanding the link between accreditation, quality improvement, and health outcomes will influence the successful adoption and implementation of the public health accreditation program. This review of literature suggests that accreditation is an important step in improving the quality of public health departments and in ultimately improving the health of communities. However, accreditation should be considered in an integrated system of tools and approaches to improve the public health practice. Hence, it is a means to an end - not an end unto itself.^

The population health performance of medical students at two medical schools

Public Health and medicine are complimentary disciplines dedicated to the health and well-being of humankind. Worldwide, medical school accreditation bodies require the inclusion of population health in medical education. In 2003, the Institutes of Medicine (IOM) recommended that all medical students receive basic public health training in population-based prevention. The purpose of this study was to (1) examine the public health clinical performance of third-year medical students at two independent medical schools, (2) compare the public health clinical practice performance of the schools, and (3) identify underlying predictors of high and low public health clinical performance at one of the medical schools. ^ This study is unique in its analysis and report of observed medical student public health clinical practices. The cohort consisted of 751 third-year medical students who completed a required clinical performance exam using trained standardized patients. Medical student performance scores on 24 consensus public health items derived from nine patient cases were analyzed.^ The analysis showed nearly identical results for both medical schools at the 60%, 65%, and 70% pass rate. Students performed poorly on items associated with prevention, behavioral science, and surveillance. Factors associated with high student performance included being from an underrepresented minority, matching to a primary care residency, and high class ranking. A review of medical school curriculum at both schools revealed a lack of training in four public health domains. Nationally, 32% of medical students reported inadequate training in public health in the year 2006.^ These findings suggest more dedicated teaching time for public health domains is needed at the medical schools represented in this study. Finally, more research is needed to assess attainment of public health knowledge and skills for medical students nationwide if we are to meet the recommendations of the IOM. ^

Federally regulated institutional review boards: The aspects of a "model" IRB---Is the current system in need of a tune up or complete overhaul?

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are the primary gatekeepers for the protection of ethical standards of federally regulated research on human subjects in this country. This paper focuses on what general, broad measures that may be instituted or enhanced to exemplify a "model IRB". This is done by examining the current regulatory standards of federally regulated IRBs, not private or commercial boards, and how many of those standards have been found either inadequate or not generally understood or followed. The analysis includes suggestions on how to bring about changes in order to make the IRB process more efficient, less subject to litigation, and create standardized educational protocols for members. The paper also considers how to include better oversight for multi-center research, increased centralization of IRBs, utilization of Data Safety Monitoring Boards when necessary, payment for research protocol review, voluntary accreditation, and the institution of evaluation/quality assurance programs. ^ This is a policy study utilizing secondary analysis of publicly available data. Therefore, the research for this paper focuses on scholarly medical/legal journals, web information from the Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Drug Administration, and the Office of the Inspector General, Accreditation Programs, law review articles, and current regulations applicable to the relevant portions of the paper. ^ Two issues are found to be consistently cited by the literature as major concerns. One is a need for basic, standardized educational requirements across all IRBs and its members, and secondly, much stricter and more informed management of continuing research. There is no federally regulated formal education system currently in place for IRB members, except for certain NIH-based trials. Also, IRBs are not keeping up with research once a study has begun, and although regulated to do so, it does not appear to be a great priority. This is the area most in danger of increased litigation. Other issues such as voluntary accreditation and outcomes evaluation are slowing gaining steam as the processes are becoming more available and more sought after, such as JCAHO accrediting of hospitals. ^ Adopting the principles discussed in this paper should promote better use of a local IRBs time, money, and expertise for protecting the vulnerable population in their care. Without further improvements to the system, there is concern that private and commercial IRBs will attempt to create a monopoly on much of the clinical research in the future as they are not as heavily regulated and can therefore offer companies quicker and more convenient reviews. IRBs need to consider the advantages of charging for their unique and important services as a cost of doing business. More importantly, there must be a minimum standard of education for all IRB members in the area of the ethical standards of human research and a greater emphasis placed on the follow-up of ongoing research as this is the most critical time for study participants and may soon lead to the largest area for litigation. Additionally, there should be a centralized IRB for multi-site trials or a study website with important information affecting the trial in real time. There needs to be development of standards and metrics to assess the performance of the IRBs for quality assurance and outcome evaluations. The boards should not be content to run the business of human subjects' research without determining how well that function is actually being carried out. It is important that federally regulated IRBs provide excellence in human research and promote those values most important to the public at large.^

Use of intranet and other interventions to increase influenza vaccination among health care workers

Influenza (the flu) is a serious respiratory illness that can cause severe complications, often leading to hospitalization and even death. Influenza epidemics occur in most countries every year, usually during the winter months. Despite recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and efforts by health care institutions across the United States, influenza vaccination rates among health care workers in the United States remain low. How to increase the number of vaccinated health care workers is an important public health question and is examined in two journal articles included here. ^ The first journal article evaluates the effectiveness of an Intranet intervention in increasing the proportion of health care workers (HCWs) who received influenza vaccination. Hospital employees were required go to the hospital's Intranet and select "vaccine received," "contraindicated," or "declined" from the online questionnaire. Declining employees automatically received an online pop-up window with education about vaccination; managers were provided feedback on employees' participation rates via e-mail messages. Employees were reminded of the Intranet requirement in articles in the employee newsletter and on the hospital's Intranet. Reminders about the Intranet questionnaire were provided through managers and newsletters to the HCWs. Fewer than half the employees (43.7%) completed the online questionnaire. Yet the hospital witnessed a statistically significant increase in the percentage of employees who received the flu vaccine at the hospital – 48.5% in the 2008-09 season as compared to 36.5%, 38.5% and 29.8% in the previous three years (P < 0.05). ^ The second article assesses current interventions employed by hospitals, health systems and nursing homes to determine which policies have been the most effective in boosting vaccination rates among American health care workers. A systematic review of research published between January 1994 and March 2010 suggests that education is necessary but not usually sufficient to increase vaccine uptake. Education about the flu and flu vaccines is most effective when complemented with easy access and making the vaccine free, although this combination may not be sufficient to achieve the desired vaccination levels among HCWs. The findings point toward adding incentives for HCWs to get vaccinated and requiring them to record their vaccination status on a declination/consent form – either written or electronic. ^ Based on these findings, American health care organizations, such as hospitals, nursing homes, and long-term care facilities, should consider using online declination forms as a method for increasing influenza vaccination rates among their employees. These online forms should be used in conjunction with other policies, including free vaccine, mobile distribution and incentives. ^ To further spur health care organizations to adopt policies and practices that will raise influenza vaccination rates among employees, The Joint Commission – an independent, not-for- profit organization that accredits and certifies more than 17,000 health care organizations and programs in the United States – should consider altering its standards. Currently, The Joint Commission does not require signed declination forms from employees who eschew vaccination; it only echoes the CDC's recommendations: "Health care facilities should require personnel who refuse vaccination to complete a declination form." Because participation in Joint Commission accreditation is required for Medicare reimbursement, action taken by the Joint Commission to require interventions such as mandatory declination/consent forms might result in immediate action by health care organizations to follow these new standards and lead to higher vaccination rates among HCWs.^ 1“Frequently Asked Questions for H1N1 and Seasonal Influenza.” The Joint Commission - Infection Control: http://www.jointcommission.org/PatientSafety/InfectionControl/h1n1_faq.htm. ^

Quality assessment in radiation oncology

Oncologic specialty societies and multidisciplinary collaborative groups have dedicated considerable effort to developing evidence-based quality indicators (QIs) to facilitate quality improvement, accreditation, benchmarking, reimbursement, maintenance of certification, and regulatory reporting. In particular, radiation oncology as a field has a long history of organized quality assessment efforts, and continues to work toward developing consensus quality standards in the face of continually evolving technologies and standards of care. The present report provides a comprehensive review of the current state of quality assessment in radiation oncology, with an emphasis on recent quality improvement efforts. Specifically, this report aims to highlight implications of the healthcare quality movement for radiation oncology and review existing efforts to define and measure quality in the field, with particular focus on dimensions of quality that are specific to radiation oncology within the "big picture" of oncologic quality improvement efforts.^