Friday, 1 June 2012

Clinical and Managerial Quality Indicators become sharper in NABH Third Edition

NABH deserves our appreciation for proving a lot more clear guidelines and better framed objective elements to remove discretion on the part of different HCOs as part of the released third edition. The standards that benefitted most seem to be (purely on quantifiable terms) those of clinical and managerial quality indicators.

The new edition takes all pains to explain in detail each of the mandatory indicators mentioned in CQI chapter. At the back of the new book, you can find several pages (37 to be precise) detailing each of the quality indicators (QI) mentioned in CQI-3 and CQI-4. The section defines the QI, provides the formula to calculate the QI, also suggests a sample size for proper measurement and gives remarks wherever necessary. In case anyone missed this, NABH also demands each indicator to be captured on a monthly basis and that month’s data only to be referred to for calculating the QI using the newly-provided formulae.

Sometime back I heard from an NABH Principal Assessor that NABH is planning to have a system across its accreditated hospitals using which one could compare these hospitals. Such a comparative system would enable ranking of the accreditated hospitals based on their performance on these measurable QIs. Is the third edition first step in that direction?

1 comment:

  1. NABH IS DOING BULLSHIT. THE ACCREDITATION IS NOT AT ALL GOOD. ASSESSORS ARE NOT KNOWLEDGEABLE AND HAVE DIFFERENT OPINION ON THE SAME STANDARD..NO UNIQUE PATTERN OF ASSESSMENT.

    ReplyDelete