Abstract
Objective There is a need to undertake more proactive and in-depth analyses of general practice accreditation processes. Two areas that have been highlighted as areas of potential inconsistency are the self-assessment and surveyor assessment of indicators. Methods The data encompass 757 accreditation visits made between December 2020 and July 2022. A mixed-effect multilevel logistic regression model determined the association between attempt of the self-assessment and indicator conformity from the surveyor assessment. Furthermore, we present a contrast of the rate of indicator conformity between surveyors as an approximation of the inter-assessor consistency from the site visit. Results Two hundred and seventy-seven (37%) practices did not attempt or accurately report conformity to any indicators at the self-assessment. Association between attempting the self-assessment and the rate of indicator non-conformity at the site visit failed to reach statistical significance (OR = 0.90 [95% CI = 1.14–0.72], P = 0.28). A small number of surveyors (N = 9/34) demonstrated statistically significant differences in the rate of indicator conformity compared to the mean of all surveyors. Conclusions Attempt of the self-assessment did not predict indicator conformity at the site visit overall. Appropriate levels of consistency of indicator assessment between surveyors at the site visit were identified.
Reference14 articles.
1. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. Standards for General Practices. 5th edn. RACGP; 2020. Available at
2. RACGP. Changes to the RACGP Standards for general practices, 5th edn. Available at
3. General practice accreditation–does time spent on-site matter?;Aust Health Rev,2023
4. MP Consulting. Review of General Practice Accreditation Arrangements. 2021. Available at
5. A process for developing standards to promote quality in general practice.;Fam Pract,2019
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献