Quality Frameworks in Intensive Care Units: A Scoping Review of Accreditation, Certification, and Standards-Based Pathways to Safer Care

Clicks: 18
ID: 331538
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #97 of 154 articles by views in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 154 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
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.
Reference Key
openalex_W7220395098 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Javier Muñoz, José Antonio Peral-Gutiérrez de Ceballos, Raquel Ribón-Liberal, Elena Moreno-Ortega, Lourdes Carmen Visedo
Journal International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/intqhc/mzag157
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.