Comment

Comment by Christina deMoraes on July 22, 2010 at 9:25pm

Hello, I was working closely with Elizabeth with TAS (before the QHA change) for Latin America. I also sent a friend request to you here a while ago so we could communicate. I would like to know what changes QHA has brought to TAS and if hospital accreditation internationally is still a goal and a feasible one. Thanks!
Blessings,
Christina deMoraes
cmd@mednetbrazil.com

Comment by Professor Steve Green on July 22, 2010 at 8:49pm

Hello all,

"QHA Trent Accreditation" is alive and well.

We are happy to talk to hospitals and clinics about providing a UK-sourced independent holistic option.

Visit us at http://www.qha-international.co.uk/home to find out more.

Yours aye,

Steve

.

Comment by JAYAKUMAR CHEPPILAPOZHI SUGUNAN on January 11, 2010 at 6:38am

Most of the patients abroad looks only the Accreditation firstly and then only they starts digging into other features of the hospital.From my experience as a facilitator,80 % of my clients insists some accreditation at least an ISO standard(most of them knows only these type of accriditation ,not like JCI or other types specialised for health care sector)

jayakumar

Comment by Dr.Ayyappan on December 24, 2009 at 4:06pm

Accreditation and Quality assurance is necessary for making the patients experience a pleasant one in the hospital for globalized health care.
Dr.Ayyappan MBBS MS MCh DNB MNAMS
Sr.CONSULTANT COSMETIC&PLASTIC SURGERY
Apollo Hospitals International
www.plasticsurgeryindia.net

Comment by Professor Steve Green on July 19, 2009 at 10:06am

Dear all,

The costs incurred by a hospital or a clinic preparing for the independent accreditation process consists variously of:

- the preparatory work (e.g. working with commercial consulting groups to assist with preparation and planning, sending staff to prakticums etc.)
- commissioning policy writing etc.
- committing some of the staffs' time to preparing for the accreditation process
- real estate modifications
- potentially taking on new staff to cover uncovered areas of activity
- paying for the survey process
- surveyors' travelling expenses and air fares
- dealing with the cost implications of recommendations made by the accreditation scheme

Added to this are the nebulous but very real costs of failure, especially if competitors in the medical tourism business play on this!

Clearly the accreditation schemes all argue that it is really all about quality, but there is no doubt that there are both more expensive and less expensive ways to tackle to quality issue. Any decent economist or accountant would tell their client that there is a real ROI (“return on investment”) issue here.

So, is the acquiring of accreditation of a particular species always and inviolably worth paying for, whatever it costs? Or, on the other hand, do the financial elements surrounding accreditation matter to hospitals and clinics?

I would be interested to know something of peoples’ thoughts about this.

Steve

Comment by Dr Sanjiv Malik on July 13, 2009 at 9:04am

Hi Steve,

I agree with you, whatever is measured gets improved. Infact in Hawthrone studies the efficiency of the workers on the floor improved despite of worsening the lighting and other work conditions as they knew they were being observed.

Comment by Professor Steve Green on July 10, 2009 at 1:09pm

The Hawthorne Effect

The Hawthorne effect is a form of reactivity whereby subjects improve an aspect of their behavior undergoing measurement simply in response to the fact that they are being studied. This phenomenon has become well established in the empirical literature beyond the original studies in the 1920s (see for example http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/7/30).

Sanjiv said that all hospitals should have external accreditation, and I happen to agree. Taking the Hawthorne-based argument forward, it may not matter too much who does the accrediting so long as someone external actually does it!

I acknowledge this is speculative. I'd welcome feedback.

Now, who wants to comment on the power of marketing in accreditation?

Comment by Alamelu Sankaran on July 10, 2009 at 9:41am

Hi Sanjiv

I have worked through three different international accreditation schemes and find that they are all nearly the same. The emphasis and focus of the standards depend also upon the ideology of the country of origin. Example the focus of a welfare state system can be very different from a privete insurance market driven system.
Any hospital should decide on the accreditation system that best suits their own ideology, apart from the cost ofcourse!

Comment by Dr Sanjiv Malik on July 10, 2009 at 9:09am

Hi Steve,

we all are on the same page,that accreditation and quality culture is the only way forward for globalized healthcare.

This brings me to another point. How does a hospital choose which accreditation to go for. Each system claims to be better than others.I do not think Price can be the only deciding factor. It could be flexibility , adaptability,cultural senstivity etc of an accreditation system that may make it preferable over others.

However in todays time we need an unbiased comparison of all major accreditation systems so as to really know which one is best for a particular hospital. I guess an independent group should do this study and analysis for the benifit of healthcare providers world wide. When we can have point by point comparisons in other service industries like hospitality ( star ratings of hotels ) why not create something for the health care industry. I would welcome the comments of all other members too.

thanks
sanjiv

Comment by Professor Steve Green on July 10, 2009 at 7:26am

Hi Sanjiv,

Excellent points.

I would argue that the awareness of available accreditation options and their potential value or otherwise is already increasing, vis the discussion we are having now. Competition is always good for a market.

Dr Maria Todd has commented, very importantly and wisely, that hospitals may sometimes seem to "polish up" before a survey takes place, and standards may subsequently drop, which is horrifying and rather diminishes one’s sense of trust and respect for levels of professionalism. I can only say, based on my own experience, that while cleanliness is next to Godliness (and can save lives), what the staff do and how the hospital functions (ie. the clinical governance standards of the hospital and the staff) are critically important, and it is a sad fact of human nature that many of us require someone from outside of our own circle to peer in at what we are doing from time to time before we shape up! Just take a look at the recent debacle in the financial industry, and one immediately has to start looking at the regulatory frameworks under whose gaze (!) such debacles were allowed to develop - we healthcare providers should, I think, take note and if need be take preventative action.

Hospitals in India would, I agree, always be well advised to look at their own domestic accreditation scheme before looking elsewhere. I have a copy of NABH standards (courtesy of Ala Sankaran), which I have read and they are certainly very sound. Outside of India, a lot of countries have not invested in developing a domestic scheme, and hospitals in a number of these certainly have aspirations to grow their share of the medical tourism market - again, the eye looking in from outside (even outside the country!) may be helpful here - coming as I do from a country which is part of a larger group (the European Union, EU), the EU's eye is a powerful one (for good or bad) and certainly helps to keep a lot of people on their toes.

Yours aye

Steve

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page