Abstract
Objective To evaluate the evidence upon which standards for hospital accreditation by The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (the Joint Commission) are based.
Design Cross sectional study.
Setting United States.
Participants Four Joint Commission R3 (requirement, rationale, and reference) reports released by July 2018 and intended to become effective between 1 July 2018 and 1 July 2019.
Interventions From each R3 report the associated standard and its specific elements of performance (or actionable standards) were extracted. If an actionable standard enumerated multiple requirements, these were separated into distinct components. Two investigators reviewed full text references, and each actionable standard was classified as either completely supported, partly supported, or not supported; Oxford evidence quality ratings were assigned; and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the strength of recommendations.
Main outcome measure Strengths of recommendation for actionable standards.
Results 20 actionable standards with 76 distinct components were accompanied by 48 references. Of the 20 actionable standards, six (30%) were completely supported by cited references, six were partly supported (30%), and eight (40%) were not supported. Of the six directly supported actionable standards, one (17%) cited at least one reference of level 1 or 2 evidence, none cited at least one reference of level 3 evidence, and five (83%) cited references of level 4 or 5 evidence. Of the completely supported actionable standards, strength of recommendation in five was deemed GRADE D and in one was GRADE B.
Conclusions In general, recent actionable standards issued by The Joint Commission are seldom supported by high quality data referenced within the issuing documents. The Joint Commission might consider being more transparent about the quality of evidence and underlying rationale supporting each of its recommendations, including clarifying when and why in certain instances it determines that lower level evidence is sufficient.
Footnotes
Contributors: All authors conceived and designed the study and acquired, analyzed, and interpreted the data. SAI, KAR, and MA drafted the manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. SAI and KAR performed the statistical analysis. MA obtained funding. SAI, KAR, and EP provided administrative, technical, or material support. MA supervised the study. MA had full access to the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. MA is the guarantor. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.
Funding: This study was supported by the Department of Dermatology, Northwestern University. The funders had no role in considering the study design or in the collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report, or decision to submit the article for publication.
Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: funding support from the Department of Dermatology, Northwestern University; no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
The lead author (MA) affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.
Dissemination to participants and related patient and public communities: We plan to share our work with readers by issuing a press release at the time of publication through Northwestern University’s media relations; tweeting about our work concurrently through our lab Twitter account (@AlamLab); distributing a plain language summary to regulators, advocacy groups, and clinicians; and writing an editorial with other physicians and patients in another journal that references this work.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study can be requested from the corresponding author (m-alam@northwestern.edu).
