IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v113y2013i1p151-159.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The public disclosure of accreditation information in Australia: Stakeholder perceptions of opportunities and challenges

Author

Listed:
  • Greenfield, David
  • Hinchcliff, Reece
  • Pawsey, Marjorie
  • Westbrook, Johanna
  • Braithwaite, Jeffrey

Abstract

Public disclosure is increasingly a requirement of accrediting agencies and governments. There are few published empirical evaluations of disclosure interventions that inform evidence-based implementation or policy. This study investigated the practices associated with the public disclosure of healthcare accreditation information, in addition to multi-stakeholder perceptions of key challenges and opportunities for improvement. We conducted a mixed methods study comprising analysis of disclosure practices by accreditation agencies, and 47 semi-structured individual or group interviews involving 258 people. Participants were diverse stakeholders associated with Australian primary, acute and residential aged care accreditation programmes. Four interrelated issues were identified. First, there was broad agreement that accreditation information should be publicly disclosed, although the three accreditation agencies differed in the information they made public. Second, two implementation issues emerged: the need to educate the community about accreditation information, and the practical question of the detail to be provided. Third, the impact, both positive and negative, of disclosing accreditation information was raised. Fourth, the lack of knowledge about the impact on consumers was discussed. Public disclosure of accreditation information is an idea that has widespread support. However, translating the idea into practice, so as to produce appropriate, meaningful information, is a challenge.

Suggested Citation

  • Greenfield, David & Hinchcliff, Reece & Pawsey, Marjorie & Westbrook, Johanna & Braithwaite, Jeffrey, 2013. "The public disclosure of accreditation information in Australia: Stakeholder perceptions of opportunities and challenges," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 151-159.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:113:y:2013:i:1:p:151-159
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.09.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851013002273
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.09.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:mpr:mprres:5089 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Bentur, Netta & Resnitzky, Shirli & Sterne, Abram, 2010. "Attitudes of stakeholders and policymakers in the healthcare system towards the provision of spiritual care in Israel," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 13-19, June.
    3. David Dranove & Ginger Zhe Jin, 2010. "Quality Disclosure and Certification: Theory and Practice," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(4), pages 935-963, December.
    4. Dana B. Mukamel & William D. Spector & Jacqueline S. Zinn & Lynn Huang & David L. Weimer & Ann Dozier, 2007. "Nursing Homes' Response to the Nursing Home Compare Report Card," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 62(4), pages 218-225.
    5. Jeongyoung Park & Rachel M. Werner, 2011. "Changes in the relationship between nursing home financial performance and quality of care under public reporting," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(7), pages 783-801, July.
    6. repec:mpr:mprres:5454 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Mary A. Laschober & Myles Maxfield & Suzanne Felt-Lisk & David J. Miranda, "undated". "Hospital Response to Public Reporting of Quality Indicators," Mathematica Policy Research Reports d1d995e7c6a542f297fca879c, Mathematica Policy Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Herr, Annika & Nguyen, Thu-Van & Schmitz, Hendrik, 2016. "Public reporting and the quality of care of German nursing homes," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(10), pages 1162-1170.
    2. Herr, Annika & Nguyen, Thu-Van & Schmitz, Hendrik, 2015. "Does quality disclosure improve quality? Responses to the introduction of nursing home report cards in Germany," DICE Discussion Papers 176, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    3. Avi Dor & William Encinosa & Kathleen Carey, 2020. "Hospital performance standards and medical pricing: The impact of information disclosure in cardiac care," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 492-515, July.
    4. Susan Feng Lu, 2012. "Multitasking, Information Disclosure, and Product Quality: Evidence from Nursing Homes," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 673-705, September.
    5. Tahir Andrabi & Jishnu Das & Asim Ijaz Khwaja, 2017. "Report Cards: The Impact of Providing School and Child Test Scores on Educational Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(6), pages 1535-1563, June.
    6. Lapo Filistrucchi & Fatih Cemil Ozbugday, 2012. "Mandatory Quality Disclosure and Quality Supply: Evidence from German Hospitals," Working Papers - Economics wp2012_16.rdf, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Scienze per l'Economia e l'Impresa.
    7. Pierre Fleckinger & Matthieu Glachant & Gabrielle Moineville, 2017. "Incentives for Quality in Friendly and Hostile Informational Environments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 242-274, February.
    8. Gu, Yiquan & Rasch, Alexander & Wenzel, Tobias, 2022. "Consumer salience and quality provision in (un)regulated public service markets," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    9. Ay, Jean-Sauveur & Le Gallo, Julie, 2021. "The Signaling Values of Nested Wine Names," Working Papers 321851, American Association of Wine Economists.
    10. Xujin Pu & Huanzhen Zhang, 2016. "Voluntary Certification of Agricultural Products in Competitive Markets: The Consideration of Boundedly Rational Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-13, September.
    11. Millock, Katrin & Xabadia, Angels & Zilberman, David, 2012. "Policy for the adoption of new environmental monitoring technologies to manage stock externalities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 102-116.
    12. Celik, Levent, 2016. "Competitive provision of tune-ins under common private information," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 113-122.
    13. Mueller-Langer, Frank & Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick, 2018. "Open access to research data: Strategic delay and the ambiguous welfare effects of mandatory data disclosure," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 20-34.
    14. Mérel, Pierre & Ortiz-Bobea, Ariel & Paroissien, Emmanuel, 2021. "How big is the “lemons” problem? Historical evidence from French wines," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    15. Huse, Cristian & Lucinda, Claudio & Cardoso, Andre Ribeiro, 2020. "Consumer response to energy label policies: Evidence from the Brazilian energy label program," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    16. Yokessa, Maïmouna & Marette, Stéphan, 2019. "A Review of Eco-labels and their Economic Impact," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 13(1-2), pages 119-163, April.
    17. Marc A. Ragin & Benjamin L. Collier & Johannes G. Jaspersen, 2021. "The effect of information disclosure on demand for high‐load insurance," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 88(1), pages 161-193, March.
    18. Rick Harbaugh & John W. Maxwell & Beatrice Roussillon, 2011. "Label Confusion: The Groucho Effect of Uncertain Standards," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(9), pages 1512-1527, February.
    19. Kretschmer, Tobias & Peukert, Christian, 2014. "Video killed the radio star? Online music videos and digital music sales," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60276, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Deversi, Marvin & Ispano, Alessandro & Schwardmann, Peter, 2021. "Spin doctors: An experiment on vague disclosure," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:113:y:2013:i:1:p:151-159. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.