Click for new scientific resources and news about Corona[COVID-19]

Paper Information

Journal:   HAKIM RESEARCH JOURNAL   WINTER 2008 , Volume 10 , Number 4; Page(s) 45 To 52.
 
Paper: 

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH STANDARDS FOR HOSPITALS WITH JOINT COMMISSION INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL ACCREDITATION STANDARDS

 
 
Author(s):  AHMADI MARYAM*, KHOUSHGAM M., MOHAMMADPOUR ALI
 
* 
 
Abstract: 

Introduction: Hospital standards are one of the most valuable conceptual elements in the organization, since they have an important role in depicting the expected performance and evaluation of hospital activities. Previous studies’ results reveal that hospital standards set by Iran’s Ministry of Health (MOH) are not efficient enough in depicting the weaknesses and shortages of healthcare centers, and hence, they need further studies. Therefore, we compared the hospital standards of MOH with those set by the Joint Commission International.
Methods: The present research is a descriptive - comparative study performed in spring and summer of 2006. Research environment consisted of the Joint Commission International hospital accreditation standards (216 statements) and hospital standards of MOH (724 questions consisting of handbook ‘A’ with 227 and handbook ‘B’ with 497 questions). Eventually, 335 questions from MOH standards were compared with 216 statements of the Joint Commission International’s standards. Data collection methods were use of the available information on the Net, e-mails (Joint Commission International’s standards), and the relevant references (MOH’s standards). Data were collected using six checklists based on Joint Commission International’s standards and were analyzed with comparative tables and descriptive statistical methods.
Results: Final collation of MOH’s standards and Joint Commission International’s standards (335 questions versus 216 statements respectively) showed that the former covered 79 statements (36.6%) of the Joint Commission completely, covered 39 statements (18.0%) partially, and did not cover the remaining 98 statements (45.4%) at all. In other words, correspondence of MOH’s standards with those of the Joint Commission was 36.6% complete, 18.0% partial, and 45.4% without any correspondence.
Conclusion: Despite of the greater quantitative aspect of the MOH’s standards for hospitals in comparison with the Joint Commission’s standards, MOH’s standards could not cover almost fifty percent (45.4 %) of the latter. In other words, 98 out of 216 statements of the Joint Commission have not had any equivalent in MOH’s standards for hospitals. This shows the fact that in compilation of hospital standards, MOH has not focused on many of the important items related to patient care process, such as continuity of care, patient and family rights, informed consent, assessment of patients, and education of patients and their families.

 
Keyword(s): ACCREDITATION STANDARDS, JOINT COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION OF HEALTHCARE ORGANIZATIONS, HOSPITAL
 
References: 
  • ندارد
 
  Persian Abstract Yearly Visit 66
 
Latest on Blog
Enter SID Blog