International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
Quality Frameworks in Intensive Care Units: A Scoping Review of Accreditation, Certification, and Standards-Based Pathways to Safer Care.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Muñoz Javier, Peral-Gutiérrez de Ceballos José Antonio, Ribón-Liberal Raquel, Moreno-Ortega Elena, Visedo Lourdes Carmen
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Accreditation, certification, recognition, and standards-based quality frameworks are widely implemented across hospitals and intensive care units (ICUs) to promote safety, standardization, and professional excellence. However, the nature and extent of the empirical evidence evaluating these frameworks specifically in critical care settings remain unclear. This scoping review aimed to map and characterize empirical studies evaluating accreditation-, certification-, recognition-, and standards-based programmes relevant to ICU care.
METHODS: We conducted a scoping review informed by established methodological frameworks and reported according to PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidance. Structured searches of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, and the Cochrane Library were performed from database inception to 10 April 2026. Eligible studies evaluated organizational accreditation, certification of critical care services, professional recognition programmes, or formal standards-based organizational frameworks relevant to ICU care. Study designs were classified as quasi-experimental studies, observational analytical studies, or structured implementation evaluations. Data were charted descriptively and synthesized narratively.
RESULTS: Fourteen empirical studies published between 2006 and 2025 met inclusion criteria. Studies evaluated hospital accreditation or organizational quality management, ICU or critical care service certification, professional recognition or professional certification, and standards-based unit-level frameworks. Outcomes most frequently addressed organizational processes, safety indicators, workforce-related measures, and implementation outcomes, whereas patient-level clinical outcomes such as mortality, length of stay, and ICU readmission were evaluated less consistently.
CONCLUSION: The empirical evidence evaluating accreditation and related quality frameworks in ICU settings is limited and heterogeneous. These frameworks are predominantly assessed as organizational and cultural mechanisms influencing processes, safety, workforce dynamics, and unit-level implementation, with less consistent evaluation of clinical outcomes. A tiered perspective distinguishing hospital-wide accreditation, service-level certification, and professional recognition may better inform future research, policy, and implementation in critical care.
METHODS: We conducted a scoping review informed by established methodological frameworks and reported according to PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidance. Structured searches of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, and the Cochrane Library were performed from database inception to 10 April 2026. Eligible studies evaluated organizational accreditation, certification of critical care services, professional recognition programmes, or formal standards-based organizational frameworks relevant to ICU care. Study designs were classified as quasi-experimental studies, observational analytical studies, or structured implementation evaluations. Data were charted descriptively and synthesized narratively.
RESULTS: Fourteen empirical studies published between 2006 and 2025 met inclusion criteria. Studies evaluated hospital accreditation or organizational quality management, ICU or critical care service certification, professional recognition or professional certification, and standards-based unit-level frameworks. Outcomes most frequently addressed organizational processes, safety indicators, workforce-related measures, and implementation outcomes, whereas patient-level clinical outcomes such as mortality, length of stay, and ICU readmission were evaluated less consistently.
CONCLUSION: The empirical evidence evaluating accreditation and related quality frameworks in ICU settings is limited and heterogeneous. These frameworks are predominantly assessed as organizational and cultural mechanisms influencing processes, safety, workforce dynamics, and unit-level implementation, with less consistent evaluation of clinical outcomes. A tiered perspective distinguishing hospital-wide accreditation, service-level certification, and professional recognition may better inform future research, policy, and implementation in critical care.