Quality

By Dr. Bob Lynn Ed.D

I cannot understand how at this juncture there are still programs that believe that quality standards equal quality treatment. Have we not learned anything from so many years of accreditations that costs programs large sums and has little data that correlates to positive outcomes?

Now some organizations believe that it is a good idea to develop additional standards which may also have little demonstrated relationship to positive outcomes. At one program a CARF evaluator said, “This is an amazing program and is one I would send my family to."

How do we know that records and fire extinguishers equal positive outcomes? As in any other medical treatment should we not be assuring that research drives the care and outcomes inform the protocols?

OK so I get it that accreditation offers at least a minimum standard of care and at the same time those who feel that they can promote their program based on any accreditation should also include their outcomes in the mix.