A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICES BEFORE AND AFTER INTERNATIONAL ACCREDITATION AND PERCEPTION OF EMPLOYEES

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the availability of evidence based practices before and after joint commission international accreditation as well as to assess employee perception about the impact of accreditation. Method: Conducted a cross sectional study in 11 health centers belong to Dubai health authority. Prepared a checklist and questionnaire to assess the processes improvements as well as the perception of employees respectively. Studied perception by recruiting physician (n=106) and nurses (n=194) using convenience sampling technique. Done content validity of the tools with clinical quality experts. Conducted pilot study for the questionnaire and checked the reliability using Cronbach alpha (0.924). After obtaining ethical clearance and consent from subjects, the researcher personally visited the health centers and administered validated questionnaire to the participants. To study processes improvements , the researcher audited documents for availability of evidence based practices before and after accreditation using the validated checklist with 17 processes reecting various domains of quality in healthcare . Results: Observed tremendous improvement in the availability of evidence-based practices. The proportion of practices before and after the accreditation was statistically signicantly different (p <.001). Majority (96.3%) of doctors and nurses perceived improvements in practices after accreditation. Statistical signicance was noted between qualication and perception of employees about the impact of accreditation (p <.001). Similarly there was also positive association between length of service and perception (p <.001) Discussion: Observed processes improvements ensuring quality of health care after accreditation. Likewise, majority of employees perceived that the accreditation has improved quality of patient care