Developing 21st century accreditation standards for teaching hospitals: the Taiwan experience

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this study is to establish teaching hospital accreditation standards anew with the hope that Taiwan's teaching hospitals can live up to the expectations of our society and ensure quality teaching.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The development process lasted two years, 2005-2006, and was separated into three stages. The first stage centered on leadership meetings and consensus building, the second on drafting the new standards with expert focus groups, and the third on a pilot study and subsequent revision.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our new teaching hospital accreditation standards have six categories and 95 standards as follows: educational resources (20 items), teaching and training plans and outcomes (42 items), research and results (9 items), development of clinical faculty and continuing education (8 items), academic exchanges and community education (8 items), and administration (8 items).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The new standards have proven feasible and posed reasonable challenges in the pilot study. We hope the new standards will strengthen teaching and research, and improve the quality of hospital services at the same time.</p

Is it enough to set national patient safety goals? An empirical evaluation in Taiwan.

[[abstract]]Objective In 2004, the Taiwan Department of Health set the national patient safety goals. To date, however, there has been no evaluation of these goals. This study aimed to develop a method to evaluate the status of the national patient safety goals in Taiwan. Design A cross-sectional questionnaire surveys to measure achievements on Taiwan's national patient safety goals. This survey was also followed up with an onsite audit to ensure accuracy. Setting All hospitals in Taiwan. Participants A total of 361 hospitals in Taiwan respond to questionnaire survey and 80 randomly selected hospitals for onsite audit. Intervention(s) None. Main Outcome Measure(s) Average scores on achievements of the national patient safety goals. Results Among the 516 hospitals to which the questionnaire was sent, 361 (70%) responded. A total of 80 hospitals were randomly selected according to geographic location and size for onsite audit. The results show that the longer the period of implementation, the higher the average scores on achievements of the goals. After stratified analysis by hospital size, the large hospitals were found to have a higher average score in every goal, especially in the new goals. Furthermore, in terms of the difference between self-report results and the onsite audit, the score in the self-report was higher than the score given by experts upon onsite audit; however, they were similar. Most items were approximately the same in the self-report score and the onsite judgment, and those that differed were merely either one rank higher or lower. Conclusion The self-report questionnaire combined with an onsite audit appears to be a promising approach for measuring scores on achievements of the national patient safety goals. The Department of Health could conduct this program annually to evaluate the progress and propose coping strategies

Is it enough to set national patient safety goals? An empirical evaluation in Taiwan

[[abstract]]Objective: In 2004, the Taiwan Department of Health set the national patient safety goals. To date, however, there has been no evaluation of these goals. This study aimed to develop a method to evaluate the status of the national patient safety goals in Taiwan. Design: A cross-sectional questionnaire surveys to measure achievements on Taiwan's national patient safety goals. This survey was also followed up with an onsite audit to ensure accuracy. Setting: All hospitals in Taiwan. Participants: A total of 361 hospitals in Taiwan respond to questionnaire survey and 80 randomly selected hospitals for onsite audit. Interventions: None. Main outcome measures: Average scores on achievements of the national patient safety goals. Results: Among the 516 hospitals to which the questionnaire was sent, 361 (70%) responded. A total of 80 hospitals were randomly selected according to geographic location and size for onsite audit. The results show that the longer the period of implementation, the higher the average scores on achievements of the goals. After stratified analysis by hospital size, the large hospitals were found to have a higher average score in every goal, especially in the new goals. Furthermore, in terms of the difference between self-report results and the onsite audit, the score in the self-report was higher than the score given by experts upon onsite audit; however, they were similar. Most items were approximately the same in the self-report score and the onsite judgment, and those that differed were merely either one rank higher or lower. Conclusion: The self-report questionnaire combined with an onsite audit appears to be a promising approach for measuring scores on achievements of the national patient safety goals. The Department of Health could conduct this program annually to evaluate the progress and propose coping strategies