Authors:
David Greenfield, Reece Hinchcliff, Mary Westbrook, Deborah Jones, Lena Low, Brian Johnston, Margaret Banks, Marjorie Pawsey, Max Moldovan, Johanna Westbrook, Jeffrey Braithwaite
Abstract
Objective
To evaluate the effectiveness of utilizing the patient journey survey (PJS) method in healthcare accreditation processes.
Design
Randomized trial of the PJS method in parallel with the current accreditation survey (CAS) method of the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS).
Setting
Acute healthcare organizations in Australia.
Participants
Seventeen organizations, 28 organizational staff, nine surveyors and 38 patients.
Main Outcome Measures
The results of each surveying method were compared. Participants provided feedback, via 18 interviews and 40 questionnaire surveys, about the benefits and disadvantages of a PJS compared to a CAS.
Results
The PJS method is not as comprehensive as the CAS method for accreditation assessment. In matched assessments the majority of items were rated lower by the PJS method than by the CAS. PJSs were shown to be appropriate for assessing mandatory clinical criteria, but were less effective for assessing corporate and support criteria. The two methods diverged in their final assessments of which organizations met the accreditation threshold. Participants endorsed the use of PJSs within accreditation processes.
Conclusions
The PJS methodology complements but is not a substitute for existing accreditation methods. There is significant stakeholder support for the inclusion of the PJS method within the current accreditation programme.