Introduction

The Accreditation Collaborative for the Conduct of Research, Evaluation and Designated Investigations through Teamwork—Cost–Benefit Analysis (ACCREDIT-CBA (Acute)) study is designed to determine and make explicit the costs and benefits of Australian acute care accreditation and to determine the effectiveness of acute care accreditation in improving patient safety and quality of care. The cost–benefit analysis framework will be provided in the form of an interactive model for industry partners, health regulators and policy makers, accreditation agencies and acute care service providers.

Methods and design

The study will use a mixed-method approach to identify, quantify and monetise the costs and benefits of accreditation. Surveys, expert panels, focus groups, interviews and primary and secondary data analysis will be used in cross-sectional and case study designs.

Ethics and dissemination

The University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee has approved this project (approval number HREC 10274). The results of the study will be reported via peer-reviewed publications, conferences and seminar resentations and will form part of a doctoral thesis.

Introduction

Health service accreditation programmes are a regulatory mechanism adopted to drive improvements inpatient safety and quality. Research investigating the benefits or limitations, of consumer involvement in accreditation programmes is negligible. To develop our knowledge in this area the ACCREDIT collaboration (Accreditation Collaborative for the Conduct of Research, Evaluation and Designated Investigations through Teamwork) has developed a research plan, known as the ACCREDIT-SCI (Standards of Consumer Involvement) study protocol. Two complementary studies have been designed: one, to examine the effectiveness of a standard for consumer participation and two, to explore how patient experiences vary across a range of settings with differing accreditation results.

Methods and design

The research setting is the Australian healthcare system, and the two studies focus on three accreditation programmes in the primary, acute and aged care domains. The studies will use multimethods: document analysis; interviews and surveys. Participants will be stakeholders across the three domains including: policy officers; frontline healthcare professionals; accreditation agency personnel, including surveyors and healthcare consumers. Drawing on previous experience, the research team has developed purpose-designed tools. Data will be analysed using thematic, narrative and statistical (descriptive and inferential) procedures.

Ethics and dissemination

The University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee has approved the two studies (HREC 10274). Findings will be disseminated through seminars, conference presentations, academic publications and research partner websites. The findings will be formulated to facilitate uptake by policy and accreditation agency professionals, researchers and academics, and consumers, nationally and internationally.

Introduction

Accreditation programmes aim to improve the quality and safety of health services, and have been widely implemented. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the outcomes of existing programmes. The Accreditation Collaborative for the Conduct of Research, Evaluation and Designated Investigations through Teamwork-Current Accreditation Processes (ACCREDIT-CAP) project is designed to address key gaps in the literature by evaluating the current processes of three accreditation programmes used across Australian acute, primary and aged care services.

Methods and design

The project comprises three mixed-method studies involving documentary analyses, surveys, focus groups and individual interviews. Study samples will comprise stakeholders from across the Australian healthcare system: accreditation agencies; federal and state government departments; consumer advocates; professional colleges and associations; and staff of acute, primary and aged care services. Sample sizes have been determined to ensure results allow robust conclusions. Qualitative information will be thematically analysed, supported by the use of textual grouping software. Quantitative data will be subjected to a variety of analytical procedures, including descriptive and comparative statistics. The results are designed to inform health system policy and planning decisions in Australia and internationally.

Ethics and dissemination

The project has been approved by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number HREC 10274). Results will be reported to partner organisations, healthcare consumers and other stakeholders via peer-reviewed publications, conference and seminar presentations, and a publicly accessible website.

Introduction

Translational research networks are a deliberate strategy to bridge the gulf between biomedical research and clinical practice through interdisciplinary collaboration, supportive funding and infrastructure. The social network approach examines how the structure of the network and players who hold important positions within it constrain or enable function. This information can be used to guide network management and optimise its operations. The aim of this study was to describe the structure of a translational cancer research network (TCRN) in Australia over its first year, identify the key players within the network and explore these players' opportunities and constraints in maximising important network collaborations.

Methods and analysis

This study deploys a mixed-method longitudinal design using social network analysis augmented by interviews and review of TCRN documents. The study will use network documents and interviews with governing body members to explore the broader context into which the network is embedded as well as the perceptions and expectations of members. Of particular interest are the attitudes and perceptions of clinicians compared with those of researchers. A co-authorship network will be constructed of TCRN members using journal and citation databases to assess the success of past pre-network collaborations. Two whole network social network surveys will be administered 12 months apart and parameters such as density, clustering, centrality and betweenness centrality computed and compared using UCINET and Netdraw. Key players will be identified and interviewed to understand the specific activities, barriers and enablers they face in that role.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approvals were obtained from the University of New South Wales, South Eastern Sydney Northern Sector Local Health Network and Calvary Health Care Sydney. Results will be discussed with members of the TCRN, submitted to relevant journals and presented as oral presentations to clinicians, researchers and policymakers.

Article summary

Article focus

Translational research networks are a deliberate strategy to transform biomedical research ‘at the bench’ into clinical practice ‘at the bedside’ through interdisciplinary collaboration, supportive infrastructure, staff and funding.

What features of network structure hinder or promote successful translational research endeavours?

What is the role of key players in a collaborative, interdisciplinary network?

Key messages

A protocol for a mixed method, longitudinal study of a new translational research network using a social network approach.

A social network approach can inform management of the network and suggest ways in which to optimise its function.

Strengths and limitations of this study

Mixed methods give quantitative data enriched with qualitative data.

Data was collected from the whole network, rather than from a sample of members.

Longitudinal design gives comparative data rather than a snapshot.

Introduction

In recent years in keeping with international best practice, clinical guidelines for common conditions have been developed, endorsed and disseminated by peak national and professional bodies. Yet evidence suggests that there remain considerable gaps between the care that is regarded as appropriate by such guidelines and the care received by patients. With an ageing population and increasing treatment options and expectations, healthcare is likely to become unaffordable unless more appropriate care is provided. This paper describes a study protocol that seeks to determine the percentage of healthcare encounters in which patients receive appropriate care for 22 common clinical conditions and the reasons why variations exist from the perspectives of both patients and providers.

Methods/design

A random stratified sample of at least 1000 eligible participants will be recruited from a representative cross section of the adult Australian population. Participants' medical records from the years 2009 and 2010 will be audited to assess the appropriateness of the care received for 22 common clinical conditions by determining the percentage of healthcare encounters at which the care provided was concordant with a set of 522 indicators of care, developed for these conditions by a panel of 43 disease experts. The knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of participants and healthcare providers will be examined through interviews and questionnaires to understand the factors influencing variations in care.

Ethics and dissemination

Primary ethics approvals were sought and obtained from the Hunter New England Local Health Network. The authors will submit the results of the study to a relevant journal as well as undertaking oral presentations to researchers, clinicians and policymakers.

Article summary

Article focus

What is the percentage of healthcare encounters at which Australians receive appropriate care?

What influences variations in care from the perspectives of patients and healthcare providers?

Key messages

A protocol for a population-based study of appropriate care of 1000 patients using medical record review.

Strengths and limitations of this study

Obtaining a snapshot and using a consistent method for 522 indicators across 22 common conditions power diagnostic indicators because they only present once for each patient.

The potential attrition rate of healthcare providers and telephone recruitment of participants may introduce selection biases.