Managers' perceptions of the effects of a national mandatory accreditation program in Danish hospitals. A cross-sectional survey

Objective: This study aimed to examine and compare middle and senior hospital managers' perceptions of the effects of a mandatory accreditation program in Denmark, the Danish Healthcare Quality Program (Den Danske Kvalitetsmodel [DDKM]) after it was terminated in 2015. Design: A cross-sectional online questionnaire survey. Setting: All 26 somatic and psychiatric public hospitals in Denmark. Participants: All senior and middle managers. Methods: A questionnaire with open and closed response (five-point Likert scale) questions. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively and through ordered logistic regression by management level. Qualitative data were subjected to a software-assisted content analysis. Results: The response rate was 49% (533/1059). In both the qualitative and quantitative data sets, participants perceived the DDKM as having: led to an increased focus on registration, documentation and additional and unnecessary procedures. While the DDKM was perceived as increasing a focus on quality, the time required for accreditation was at the expense of patient care. There were significant differences by management level, with middle managers having more negative perceptions of the DDKM related to time spent on documentation and registration. Conclusion: While the DDKM had some perceived benefits for quality improvement, it was ultimately considered time-consuming and outdated or having served its purpose. Including managers, particularly middle managers, in refinements to the new quality improvement model could capitalize on the benefits while redressing the problems with the terminated accreditation program.