PUN214: National Accreditation Scheme - Development and Comparison

This report provides a detailed analysis of the Australian National Accreditation Scheme, examining its rationale, development, and implementation within the context of healthcare quality and patient safety. It explores the scheme's goals, including public safety, workforce mobility, and high-quality education and training. The report compares the Australian scheme with accreditation practices in other countries, highlighting differences in legislative frameworks, objectives, and the assessment of overseas-trained practitioners. Specific examples from the UK, Canada, and the USA are used to illustrate these variations. Furthermore, the report discusses the historical evolution of accreditation in Australia, from self-regulatory standards to the current national approach, and references key government initiatives and inquiries that have shaped the scheme. The document concludes by emphasizing the unique aspects of the Australian system, such as its explicit workforce focus and multi-profession legislation, while also acknowledging the complexities and diverse regulatory models found in other countries. This student-contributed assignment is available on Desklib, a platform offering study tools and resources for students.

Workbook Activity 2.2
National registration and accreditation scheme
The Australian association of social workers is aimed at achieving registration and protection
for protection of social workers. The establishment of the scheme is aimed at enhancing public
safety and upholding ethical practice. It was established in the year 2010 and is the regulator of
regulating qualification and practice for health care practitioners in Australia.
The Australian health practitioner regulation scheme ensures that it is responsible on health
practitioners. The aims of national registration and accreditation scheme, is geared at ensuring
on training and qualified practitioners. Its development is geared towards mobilising and
facilitating health workforce through enabling and continuous improvement through flexible,
responsive and sustainable Australian health workforce, (ACSQH, 2010a).
The professions registered with the board developed standards and guidelines which guides
the profession registration and enhances development of professional standards and practice. The
specific standards in the board fall under the role of responsible boards. Further the national
boards have the function of regulating the practice through registration of practitioners which
develop professional standards, (ACSQH, 2010b).
Further the board has the task of establishing English language standards through registration
of practitioners and developing professional standards. Further the scheme has brought sanity to
the service in that, members of the public are able to make complains on health related
practitioners through student health, conducting and practice performance. Complains are made
through the board.
Notifications of conduct are made when the practitioner practices in the workforce are under
intoxication of alcohol, practices which put the harm and impairment, when the practitioners
experience significant departure of professional standards and also practitioner engagement on
sexual misconduct in relation to profession practice, (ACSQH, 2010d).

Workbook Activity 2.2
Rationale
The national registration and accreditation scheme for health professionals was established
through Health Practitioner Regulation Law Act which took effect in year 2010. The goals of the
scheme is geared at providing public safety, facilitation of work force mobility and high quality
of education and training, promotion of access of health services and developing of flexible
responsive and sustainable of workforce scheme.
The Australian of association workers are geared towards protection and registration and title
for professional social workers which are geared to up holding safe ethical practices. The
establishment of this system is geared towards enhancing public safety and operational sing the
health work force. Hence health care professionals are regulated effectively and mange through
best practices, ((ACSQH, 2010a).).
Development and implementation of Australian national accreditation scheme and its
processes
The Australian heath safety and scheme and quality accreditation is geared towards provision
of national coordination process. Collection and analysis of consumer feedback is an essential
part in improving quality. With these arrangements, the board is geared towards providing and
maintaining health standards.
This improvement of the health care system is geared towards ensuring support on health and
territorial health departments which aimed at supporting and improving and facilitating
understanding health service, (ACSQH, 2010e).
In comparison of accreditation schemes from other countries, there is observed difference in i
legislative frameworks and objective in health care practice. Its only in Australia, has explicit
workforces with its national legislation. Legislation in Australian have multi profession and
while others have single. In Australia, it includes assessments of oversees and trained
practitioners with accreditation functions, (ADC, 2011).

Workbook Activity 2.2
There have been differences observed in the accreditation institutions among countries. In
UK, the optometry is accompanied with the registration of exam by a professional body wile in
Canada, the regulators won the accreditation body, while inn USA, ownership is though 50%
ownership by private regulators. The ownership of accreditation in Australia, took effect in the
1970s through the years 2008, where at least’s 87% of the hospitals received accreditation
process. By the year 2013, Australia had not sought and inquired for direct accreditation system,
however in the year 2009 it was underway, (Aust Gov, 2009).
The accrediting efforts currently have grown out of self regulatory standards which are geared
towards Australian council of health care standards. Good examples include the inclusion of
both the private and public hospitals usage of Australian Excellent Framework, which has
yielded Australian Quality standards.
There is existence of state quality standards which often reflect on efforts on development of
proposals and application process over the years. This has been driven by the public sector with
governments having no jurisdiction. Other states have entered interstate agreement while others
have adopted judicial process on the care quality processes.
In Queensland, in the year 1994, government decreed all agencies to use and seek ISO 9000
certifications; strict guidelines have been placed to govern this. In the year 2006, the Bundaberg
commission of inquiry is geared towards passing legislation and establishing complaints on
health care services and monitoring compliance, (Aust Gov, 2010a).
Further an elaborate past scheme has been the efforts of state authorities in being proactive
and incorporating human health factors and services of quality framework which was developed
in the year 2010-11 through the Queensland department of community services. Also sets of
quality standards have been developed through the government and nongovernmental health
delivery entities. This new health services and quality standards are geared towards encapsulate
and reflect the standards that have been used in disability, child safety, housing and

Workbook Activity 2.2
homelessness, community services and home and community care service streams, many of
which overlap or are common to more than one stream, (Australian Gov, 2009)
Comparative accreditation process in other countries
While making comparison of how different countries have put in place their legislation, it is
evident that each country has its own profession process which is geared o enhancing safe
standards. However each country has its own complexities. There are different regulatory
models available in various countries.
There have been differences in their legislative process with countries having multi
profession association legislation while others have single profession. In countries such as
Australian and New Zealand have overarching legislation which regulated by professions,
(Boursier et al, 2016).
The difference which has been observed is with the accreditation functions the differ
countries. It is only in Australia, that includes assessments of oversees trained practitioners,
while other countries exclude this. There is observed difference in observed characteristics of
bodies delegated in oversees assessment of qualified practitioners, (Greenfield et al, 2015).
A case example is the optometry in UK, it has pre registration and accompanying exam
process which is run by bodies owned by professional bodies, while in Canada, it has over 10
professional regulators examining the body. In USA it has adopted a 50% of the nominees being
given slot in the regulatory body, (Tylor, 2015).
Professions in some countries often take a protected title which has scope of regulation. A
case example is in New Zealand and where the scope has been reflecting practice rather than a
protected title. Further differences in schemes have been observed with regard to funding
models. In Australian and New Zealand finding is received through education providers and
registrants while in USA it has education providers while Ireland receive its funding through
registrants and government, (Ralph, Birks & Chapman, 2015).

Workbook Activity 2.2
References
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (2010e) National Safety and Quality Health
Service Standards and their use in a Model National Accreditation Scheme: Consultation
Regulatory Impact Statement, September 2010
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare. (2010a). Windows into Safety and Quality
in Health Care 2010, available at
http://www.safetyandqu`ality.gov.au/internet/safety/publishing.nsf/Content/
A7CBED6274ACBC29CA2577EC000E63A3/$File/Windows%202010%20Web%20version.PDF
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare. (2010b). National Safety and Quality
Health Service Standards and their use in a Model National Accreditation Scheme. Available at
http://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/internet/safety/publishing.nsf/Content/
862222652D5C4A2BCA2577ED001671A1/$File/42141-RegulatoryImpactStatement.pdf
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare. (2010c). Update, Issue 12, December 2010.
Available at http://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/internet/safety/publishing.nsf/Content/
C7B4122C77D16F03CA2577FA0080F0D6/$File/Issue-12.pdf
Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare. (2010d). Australian Safety and Quality
Framework for Health Care. Available at
http://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/internet/safety/publishing.nsf/Content/
C774AE55079AFD23CA2577370000783C/$File/32296-Australian-SandQ-Framework.PDF
Australian Dental Council. (2011). http://www.adc.org.au/adcintro.html. Accessed on 08 April 2018
2018.
Australian Government Department of Health and Aging. (2007), The State of Our Public Hospitals, June
2007 Report.
Australian Government Department of Health and Aging. (2010), The State of Our Public Hospitals, June
2010 Report, http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/sooph10/$file/
SoOPH_2010_FINAL%20REPORT.pdf . 08 April 2018 2018.

Workbook Activity 2.2
Australian Government. (2009). A Healthier future for All Australians – Final Report of the National
Health and Hospitals Reform Commission - June 2009. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Available at http://www.health.gov.au/internet/nhhrc/publishing.nsf/Content/nhhrc-report
Australian Government. (2010a). A National Health and Hospitals Network For Australia’s Future.
Canberra: Commonwealth off Australia.
http://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/internet/safety/publishing.nsf/Content/
E92F1AE391484E87CA2577A80002704D/$File/Consult-Reg-Impact-Statement.pdf
Australian Government. (2010b). A National Health and Hospitals Network for Australia’s Future:
Delivering the Reforms. Accessed at
http://www.yourhealth.gov.au/internet/yourHealth/publishing.nsf/Content/
DeliveringTheReforms/$FILE/DeliveringTheReforms.pdf
Boursier, G., Vukasovic, I., Brguljan, P. M., Lohmander, M., Ghita, I., Andreu, F. A. B., ... &
Thelen, M. H. (2016). Accreditation process in European countries–an EFLM survey.
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), 54(4), 545-551.
Greenfield, D., Debono, D., Hogden, A., Hinchcliff, R., Mumford, V., Pawsey, M., ... &
Braithwaite, J. (2015). Examining challenges to reliability of health service accreditation
during a period of healthcare reform in Australia. Journal of health organization and
management, 29(7), 912-924.
Ralph, N., Birks, M., & Chapman, Y. (2015). The accreditation of nursing education in
Australia. Collegian, 22(1), 3-7.
Taylor, G. (2015). Working to ensure a fair accreditation process. Newsmonth, 35(1), 2.