Quality and Safety in Healthcare - Differences and Similarities between National and International Accreditation Organizations - Impact of Raising Standards - A Critical Analysis

This essay discusses the differences and similarities between national and international accreditation organizations, and the impact of raising standards in healthcare. The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards and Joint Commission International are analyzed in detail. The document type is an essay, and the subject is healthcare. The course code is 6, and the course name is Healthcare Management. The college/university is not mentioned.

Running head: QUALITY AND SAFETY IN HEALTHCARE
QUALITY AND SAFETY IN HEALTHCARE
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note:

1
QUALITY AND SAFETY IN HEALTHCARE
Introduction:
Accreditation in the health care organization is the type of external review which
shows that the healthcare provider of the healthcare organization are providing best quality
care to the patient and is following the national and international standard set for the
healthcare fields and the national and international healthcare regulation. Accreditation is
provided only to the healthcare organization which follows the healthcare regulations and the
standards (Hong & Park, 2016). The accreditation is provided to the healthcare organization
by both national accreditation organization and the international accreditation organization.
The primary aim of the discussion is to provide the differences and the similarities between
the national and the international organization. The national accreditation organization
chosen for the discussion is The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards and the
international healthcare standard chosen for the discussion is the Joint Commission
International and the difference between the two accreditation organizations is critically
analysed. Along with it, the discussion also contains the impact of the raising the value of the
health care and the safety standards based on the both international and the national
healthcare organization such as Joint Commission International and the Australian Council
on Healthcare Standards. It is observed that the person centered care helps in enhancing the
quality of the healthcare by following the safety standards.
The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards:
The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards is considered as the one of the best
quality and leading accreditation body in the Australia. By considering the quality of the
Australian Council on Healthcare Standards, the requests from the overseas are also
considered for the accreditation program with the help of The Australian Council on
Healthcare Standards International. The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards have

2
QUALITY AND SAFETY IN HEALTHCARE
established enhanced base for the membership in the Middle East and Asia specifically and
the organization of the members is said to be diverse in nature and size (AUSTRALIAN
COUNCIL ON HEALTHCARE STANDARDS. (2019). The Australian Council on
Healthcare Standards is considered as one of the best accreditation body and has gained
massive reputation in the field of healthcare which is due to the support provided by major
numbers of the extremely qualified, experienced and trained consultants and the survivors.
Joint Commission International
Joint Commission International aids to measure, identifies and also enhances sharing
of the best healthcare practices to provide better quality care and patient wellbeing globally.
Joint Commission International aims to provide better leaders, who can deliver great quality
healthcare services to the patient and also helps in formulating innovative solutions for the
health care organization across globally in order to provide enhanced performance and health
outcomes (JOINT COMMISSION INTERNATIONAL. (2019). Joint Commission
International aims to enhance the public health. Joint Commission International has an expert
team that works in collaboration with the hospitals, health systems, public health agencies,
business, healthcare organization, government ministries and with the other public
organization is order to improve the patient care performance. Joint Commission
International aids the healthcare organization to earn the certification and accreditation of the
Joint Commission International, which is documented as the global gold seal of approval. It
also benefits the health organization to provide enhance health related education and along
with that it also helps the health agency to deliver evidence-based facilities for improved
health outcomes (Mehta, Goldstein & Makary, 2017). Joint Commission International is one
of the non-profit organization which address the quality of the care and the patient

3
QUALITY AND SAFETY IN HEALTHCARE
Differences and similarity
The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards is the national accreditation
organization and the Joint Commission International is the international health care
accreditation organization which provides accreditation and certification to all the healthcare
agency globally.
The first and one of the most important difference between the Australian Council on
Healthcare Standards and the Joint Commission International is that it provides accreditation
to the healthcare organization of the Australia and to all the health care organization which is
US based. According to Wang et al., (2015), the Joint Commission International has provided
accreditation to around 20,000 US based healthcare organization. It provides accreditation to
the healthcare organization situated in Asia, Africa, Middle East, South America and Europe.
Apart from these, similarity noticed between the Joint Commission International and
the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards is their way of working. Both the
accreditation organization provides accreditation to the organization by reviewing the health
care practice of that particular organization. The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards
provides accreditation to the healthcare organization based on the performance of the
healthcare organization. In order to assess the performance of the healthcare organization,
continual or regular review is conducted and if the healthcare organization is said to be
focused on the safety, performance and the quality of the healthcare practice, the organization
gets the accreditation from The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards
(Mumford et al., 2015). The Joint Commission International also provides accreditation based
on the survey conducted, whereas the only difference noticed is that the Joint Commission
International does not inspect continually and regularly. The Joint Commission International
inspects the healthcare organization without prior notification to the healthcare authority.

4
QUALITY AND SAFETY IN HEALTHCARE
According to Santamaria et al., (2017), the review criteria of both the accreditation
organization is more or less similar.
According to the Gill et al., (2015), the other similarity noticed between the Joint
Commission International and The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards is their
profitability. The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards is the non-profit organization,
whereas the Joint Commission International is also a non-profit organization but charges $30
for the complete hospital survey. Apart from that, the reimbursement expenses, travel, living
and accommodation expenses is also included in the fee which Joint Commission
International takes for accreditating the healthcare organization.
The staff involved in the Joint Commission International is less than that of the
number of staff The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards. The Australian Council on
Healthcare Standards also train and educate different healthcare related topic such as,
information about the risk management, safety system, clinical governance system, care
planning, infection control, documentation and other services, whereas Joint Commission
International only provides accreditation.
Critical analysis of Impact of raising quality and safety standards in both international
and national basis.
Health care is the most important area of concern for the people and their safety.
Quality and safety standard are developed by the health care organization to recover the
health outcome of the country as well as whole world. The standards are referred to as certain
policy and set of rule which must be maintained by every health care sector for giving person
centred care. These set of policies and standard are constructed by the professional team
concerning both country and global health. Australia Council Health Care Standard and Joint
Commission International work at the national and international level respectively (Renedo et

5
QUALITY AND SAFETY IN HEALTHCARE
al., 2015). They are majorly involve in giving accreditation to various health care system;
hence, any raise of quality and safety standard will have enormous effect in the health of
people. With the objective to remain relevant, care standard must evolve unceasingly with up
surging the flexibility of practitioner to offer personalized patient centred care.
Health care sector is under the pressure to improve the well-being and quality of the
care of the people. From the study of Bergerum et al. (2019) it can was seen that quality and
safety standards are developed with the major objective of patient centred care. By giving
patient centred care, it will improve the overall health of the people. In Australia, burden of
disease is high which has led to high mortality and morbidity rate. There are many quality
and safety standard implemented in both national and international basis to increase the
quality of care.
From the study of Braithwaite (2015) it can be said that in Australia because of high
prevalence of disease, there was the great need to improvise the quality and safety standards
to lower the health risk in the country. Australian Council of Health Care Standard has raised
their quality and safety standards after analysing the health scenario of the country. Though it
already provide the basic rules which has improve the health practice. Author in his paper has
analysed that with the prevalence of health risk associated with medical practice, ACHS has
made raised their standards. As an impact of such changes, the health risk has been reduced
from 35.9% to 20.67%. Thus, it can be said that national quality standard helps in improving
the health of people and gives effective person centred care.
There are many organization which works internationally focussing on the health of
the people globally. It takes into account the epidemic disease, overall health population and
types of standard existing. From the study of Sibthorpe, Gardner and McAullay (2016) which
is based on the review of Joint Commission International has highlighted that it has given

6
QUALITY AND SAFETY IN HEALTHCARE
new quality and patient safety advisory service. The major reason for raising the standard in
international basis was lack of trained health care professional which was affecting the global
public health. Hence, JCI has implemented new set of standards for providing global training
to the health care provider. The new set of rule has improved the person centred care as the
new trained professional are efficient and competent enough to provide effective care to the
patients.
From the study of Barnett et al. (2018) it was observed that inconsistent quality of
care can have negative effect on the hospital as it compromise the health of people.
Supporting his study, Gozlu and Kaya (2016) have reflected on the need of raising the quality
and safety standard to provide person centred care. The standardized procedure can be
effectively applied in both national and international level in the realm of healthcare to
confirm that person centred care given is consistent and safe. Raising the standards of it has
posed positive impact on the healthcare sector as it improve the treatment, health outcome,
decrease the hospital stay and also decrease the readmission incidence. If it is seen in
accumulation, it majorly improve the patient centred care.
The ACHS and JCI balance the work of the health care sector in national and
international level respectively. Therefore, any changes in their quality and safety standard
will have large impact on the health care sector. Askari et al. (2017) has done a critical
analysis on the standardized care where the author has stated that the quality and safety
standard are raised by reviewing the clinical pathway of the health sector which includes the
multidisciplinary care of plan, steps involved in care of patients with specific illness, the
clinical guideline and certain set of protocol. Hence, if the standard are raised by the
governing body, the working scenario at both level will be impacted. Their guideline and
steps will changes by focusing on the patient centred care. Thus, it tends to improve the
loopholes which is persisting in the health care sector.

7
QUALITY AND SAFETY IN HEALTHCARE
The study of Cabitza and Batini (2016) focus on the impact of improving the quality
of standard where author has argued that with the introduction of new plan of treatment and
new standard of care may leads to impractical demands of the working staffs and the health
care organization. It is seen from his study that at one time stroke was untreatable in Australia
however with the emergence of new standard of care and health quality of door to needle
times, the survival rate of patient has improved. According to Delaney (2018) before
continuing the quality of care and safety standard, there has been more instances where
patients are unable to get adequate assess of care due to lack of proper health care system.
However, when the standard of ACHS and JCI has raised it has improved the health of
people and created new rule and incidents for the safety issues (Braithwaite et al., 2018).
Therefore, raising the quality of standard of both Australia council health care
standard and joint commission international aims at person centred care and improves the
working guideline of various health care sector. It is the posed positive effect on the health
care guidelines at both national and international level.

8
QUALITY AND SAFETY IN HEALTHCARE
References:
Askari, R., Shafii, M., Rafiei, S., Abolhassani, M. S., & Salarikhah, E. (2017). Failure mode
and effect analysis: improving intensive care unit risk management
processes. International journal of health care quality assurance, 30(3), 208-215.
AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL ON HEALTHCARE STANDARDS. (2019). Retrieved 23 July
2019, from https://www.achs.org.au/international/products-and-services/training-and-
education/
Barnett, A., Winning, M., Canaris, S., Cleary, M., Staib, A., & Sullivan, C. (2018). Digital
transformation of hospital quality and safety: real-time data for real-time
action. Australian Health Review.
Bergerum, C., Thor, J., Josefsson, K., & Wolmesjö, M. (2019). How might patient
involvement in healthcare quality improvement efforts work—A realist literature
review. Health Expectations.
Braithwaite, J., Vincent, C., Nicklin, W., & Amalberti, R. (2018). Coping with more people
with more illness. Part 2: new generation of standards for enabling healthcare system
transformation and sustainability. International Journal for Quality in Health
Care, 31(2), 159-163.
Cabitza, F., & Batini, C. (2016). Information quality in healthcare. In Data and Information
Quality (pp. 403-419). Springer, Cham.
Delaney, L. J. (2018). Patient-centred care as an approach to improving health care in
Australia. Collegian, 25(1), 119-123.
Gill, F. J., Leslie, G. D., Grech, C., & Latour, J. M. (2015). An analysis of Australian
graduate critical care nurse education. Collegian, 22(1), 71-81.

9
QUALITY AND SAFETY IN HEALTHCARE
Gozlu, K., & Kaya, S. (2016). Patient Safety Culture as Perceived by Nurses in a Joint
Commission International Accredited Hospital in Turkey and its Comparison with
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Data. Journal of Patient Safety &
Quality Improvement, 4(4), 441-449.
Greenfield, D., Hinchcliff, R., Banks, M., Mumford, V., Hogden, A., Debono, D., ... &
Braithwaite, J. (2015). Analysing ‘big picture’policy reform mechanisms: the
Australian health service safety and quality accreditation scheme. Health
Expectations, 18(6), 3110-3122.
Hong, M. H., & Park, J. Y. (2016). Nurses' perception of accreditation, awareness and
performance of infection control in an accredited healthcare system. Journal of
Korean Academy of Nursing Administration, 22(2), 167-177.
JOINT COMMISSION INTERNATIONAL. (2019). Who is JCI - Who We Are | Joint
Commission International. Retrieved 23 July 2019, from
https://www.jointcommissioninternational.org/about-jci/who-is-jci/
Mehta, A., Goldstein, S. D., & Makary, M. A. (2017). Global trends in center accreditation
by the Joint Commission International: growing patient implications for international
medical and surgical care. Journal of travel medicine, 24(5), tax048.
Mumford, V., Greenfield, D., Hogden, A., Forde, K., Westbrook, J., & Braithwaite, J. (2015).
Counting the costs of accreditation in acute care: an activity-based costing approach.
BMJ open, 5(9), e008850.
Renedo, A., Marston, C. A., Spyridonidis, D., & Barlow, J. (2015). Patient and Public
Involvement in Healthcare Quality Improvement: How organizations can help
patients and professionals to collaborate. Public Management Review, 17(1), 17-34.

10
QUALITY AND SAFETY IN HEALTHCARE
Santamaria, J. D., Duke, G. J., Pilcher, D. V., Cooper, D. J., Moran, J., & Bellomo, R. (2017).
Readmissions to intensive care: a prospective multicenter study in Australia and New
Zealand. Critical care medicine, 45(2), 290-297.
Sibthorpe, B., Gardner, K., & McAullay, D. (2016). Furthering the quality agenda in
Aboriginal community controlled health services: understanding the relationship
between accreditation, continuous quality improvement and national key performance
indicator reporting. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 22(4), 270-275.
Wang, H. F., Jin, J. F., Feng, X. Q., Huang, X., Zhu, L. L., Zhao, X. Y., & Zhou, Q. (2015).
Quality improvements in decreasing medication administration errors made by
nursing staff in an academic medical center hospital: a trend analysis during the
journey to Joint Commission International accreditation and in the post-accreditation
era. Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 11, 393.