Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Daucourt, V.
Right arrow Articles by Michel, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Daucourt, V.
Right arrow Articles by Michel, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal for Quality in Health Care 15:463-471 (2003)
© 2003 International Society for Quality in Health Care

Results of the first 100 accreditation procedures in France

Valentin Daucourt and Philippe Michel

Comité de Coordination de l’Evaluation Clinique et de la Qualité en Aquitaine (CCECQA), Hôpital Xavier Arnozan, 33604 Pessac Cedex, France

Purpose. To identify the areas of needed improvement that were most frequently identified in the first 100 accredited hospitals by the French Accreditation College (FAC) according to the standards manual. To compare the outcomes of accreditation procedures according to the status and size of the accredited hospitals.

Data sources. We analyzed the first 100 summaries of accreditation reports available on the website of the Agence Nationale d’Accréditation et d’Evaluation en Santé (ANAES).

Data extraction. Data were collected on hospitals, accreditation processes, and outcomes (decisions of the FAC). For each decision, we assessed the relationship with accreditation manual criteria, and analyzed their distribution by chapter.

Results of data synthesis. Among the 100 accredited hospitals (40 public, 43 private, 17 mixed), nine were accredited without recommendations for improvement, 47 with recommendations, 40 with reservations, and four with major reservations. All of them received requests for improvement. No significant difference was found concerning the FAC decisions according to status and size of hospitals, although there was a trend that the larger the hospital, the more numerous and more serious the decisions of the FAC. The main topics addressed by decisions were those given high priority by the FAC (information given to patients and its traceability on patient records, and signing of prescriptions for medication).

Conclusion. Despite wide heterogeneity in the summaries on accreditation and in FAC decision-making, this study provides an initial insight into common quality defects and ANAES priorities for hospitals in France.

Keywords: accreditation, health care, peer review, quality assurance,, quality of health care

Accepted for publication June 24, 2003.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Int J Qual Health CareHome page
D. Greenfield and J. Braithwaite
Health sector accreditation research: a systematic review
Int. J. Qual. Health Care, June 1, 2008; 20(3): 172 - 183.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J Qual Health CareHome page
C. D. Shaw
Evaluating accreditation
Int. J. Qual. Health Care, December 1, 2003; 15(6): 455 - 456.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.