Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Joint Commission

The Joint Commission is an independent, not-for-profit organization founded in 1951 that accredits and certifies over 20,000 healthcare organizations and programs in the United States to enhance patient safety and quality of care.^[1] Originally established as the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals through the merger of standardization efforts by leading medical professional associations, it evaluates facilities against rigorous performance standards developed through evidence-based processes.^[1] Accreditation by The Joint Commission is widely recognized by federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid as a prerequisite for reimbursement eligibility, influencing widespread adoption of its quality improvement protocols across hospitals, ambulatory care centers, and other providers.^[2] Key achievements include the establishment of National Patient Safety Goals in 2002, which target high-risk areas like infection prevention and medication errors, leading to measurable reductions in adverse events in accredited settings.^[3] However, the organization has faced criticism for its 2001 pain management standards, which prioritized routine pain assessment and treatment—often as the "fifth vital sign"—contributing to increased opioid prescribing practices that some analyses link to the escalation of the opioid epidemic, prompting revisions in 2017 to emphasize multimodal, non-opioid approaches.^[4]^[5] Despite defenses from The Joint Commission attributing misuse to misinterpretations rather than the standards themselves, empirical reviews highlight how these guidelines incentivized aggressive pharmacotherapy in hospitals, underscoring tensions between quality mandates and unintended public health consequences.^[6]^[7]

Historical Development

Origins and Founding

In 1910, Dr. Ernest Amory Codman, a Boston surgeon, proposed the "End Result Idea" during a presentation at the Clinical Congress of Surgeons, advocating for hospitals to systematically track and analyze patient outcomes after surgical interventions to foster accountability and drive improvements based on empirical data rather than procedural compliance alone.^[8]^[9] Codman's system emphasized identifying "process errors" through end-result audits, where deviations from expected recovery—such as death, permanent disability, or unnecessary procedures—would prompt corrective actions by responsible practitioners, marking an early shift toward outcome-oriented quality assessment in medicine.^[10] Building on such foundational concepts for hospital standardization, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH) was formally established on December 18, 1951, in Chicago as an independent, not-for-profit entity.^[1] It emerged from collaborative efforts by the American College of Surgeons, American Medical Association, American Hospital Association, and Canadian Medical Association to create a voluntary accreditation mechanism that evaluated hospitals against uniform quality benchmarks, aiming to elevate care standards through peer review without relying on federal mandates.^[11] This initiative extended the American College of Surgeons' earlier hospital registration program, which had inspected over 700 facilities by 1950 using structural criteria derived from Codman's influence but adapted for broader application.^[9] From its inception, the JCAH prioritized structural standards—focusing on tangible elements like physical plant adequacy, medical staff qualifications, diagnostic and therapeutic facilities, and record-keeping protocols—over direct outcome measurements, aligning with the post-World War II ethos of professional self-governance amid expanding healthcare infrastructure and a aversion to external regulation.^[12] These standards, first applied in surveys starting in 1952, built on pre-existing hospital approval models but formalized a national framework to ensure basic organizational competence as a proxy for quality, with accreditation granted to approximately 1,700 hospitals by the mid-1950s.^[13]

Expansion and Key Milestones

In 1965, the U.S. Congress established Medicare through the Social Security Amendments, granting the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH) deeming authority, whereby its accreditation was recognized as equivalent to federal certification for hospitals seeking Medicare reimbursement.^[14]^[15] This linkage causally expanded the Joint Commission's influence, as hospitals pursued accreditation to access federal funds without direct government oversight, incentivizing compliance with evolving standards amid growing program enrollment.^[16] By the late 1980s, the organization's scope broadened beyond acute-care hospitals to include ambulatory care, long-term care, and other settings, prompting a 1987 name change to the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO).^[17] This reflected integration of performance-oriented reforms under the Agenda for Change, initiated in 1987 to emphasize outcomes and data over structural checklists.^[11] In the mid-1990s, the ORYX initiative, launched in 1997 for hospitals, marked a shift to data-driven accreditation by requiring organizations to select and report performance measures aligned with clinical priorities, fostering accountability through empirical metrics.^[18]^[19] Further evolution occurred in 2002 with the establishment of the National Patient Safety Goals program, prioritizing targeted interventions against high-risk errors such as wrong-site surgery and medication mismanagement, based on sentinel event analyses.^[17]^[20] The name simplified to The Joint Commission in 2007, underscoring its comprehensive oversight of diverse healthcare entities including behavioral health and disease-specific programs.^[21] By 2023, it accredited more than 20,000 U.S. healthcare organizations, with deeming status facilitating participation for a majority of hospitals in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements.^[1]

Organizational Framework

Governance and Leadership

The Joint Commission is governed by a Board of Commissioners comprising 21 voting members, selected for their expertise in healthcare delivery, including physicians, administrators, nurses, educators, employers, and specialists in quality, safety, and innovation.^[22]^[23] This composition draws primarily from within the healthcare sector, with representatives from key professions and stakeholders such as business executives and administrators.^[24] The Board holds ultimate responsibility for policy approval, strategic oversight, and ensuring alignment with the organization's mission to advance healthcare quality.^[25] Executive leadership, under President and Chief Executive Officer Jonathan B. Perlin, MD, PhD, who assumed the role on March 1, 2022, drives day-to-day operations, standard development, and implementation of accreditation processes.^[26] Perlin, previously under secretary for health in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, oversees a team of officers and executives who collaborate with advisory groups to refine standards before Board review and ratification.^[27] This structure emphasizes internal expertise in decision-making, with the CEO reporting to the Board on enterprise-wide initiatives.^[28] As a private, non-governmental entity with 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status granted by the Internal Revenue Service, the organization maintains operational independence from federal oversight.^[29] However, its accreditation derives substantial authority from recognition by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which deems Joint Commission surveys equivalent to federal Conditions of Participation for Medicare reimbursement eligibility, as reaffirmed in CMS approvals through at least 2022.^[30] This reliance on CMS endorsement amplifies its influence while preserving its status as a voluntary, self-sustaining accreditor. Critics have questioned the Board's heavy representation from accrediting professions, arguing it fosters potential conflicts of interest in standard-setting that may prioritize industry perspectives over broader public accountability.^[31]

Funding and Financial Model

The Joint Commission, a not-for-profit organization, generates its primary revenue through fees paid by healthcare organizations seeking accreditation, certification, and related services. These include triennial on-site survey fees and annual fees, which are determined by factors such as the organization's average daily census, number of services provided, and overall size. Survey fees cover surveyor travel, maintenance, and evaluation costs, while annual fees support ongoing monitoring and standards development; for behavioral health organizations, for instance, these combined fees over a three-year accreditation cycle are prorated and scaled accordingly.^[32]^[33] Additional revenue streams encompass sales from Joint Commission Resources, an affiliate offering publications, education, and consulting on compliance and quality improvement, which reported approximately $63 million in revenue for fiscal year 2023. The organization's consolidated program service revenues have hovered around $190-200 million annually in recent years, reflecting its accreditation of over 20,000 entities. The Joint Commission receives no direct government funding, operating independently since its founding, though its accreditation confers "deemed status" for Medicare and Medicaid participation, indirectly bolstering demand as most U.S. hospitals require it for federal reimbursements.^[34]^[35] This fee-based model has drawn scrutiny for potential financial incentives that may encourage the proliferation of standards, as expanded requirements can drive revenue from add-on services like preparatory consulting without evidence of proportional gains in clinical outcomes. Critics, including analyses of accreditation costs, argue that the Joint Commission's market dominance—with limited viable alternatives—enables pricing akin to a monopoly, imposing significant administrative burdens on providers; for example, surveying processes can constitute 10-15% of a hospital's annual audit expenses, raising questions about value relative to empirical improvements in patient safety. Such structures prioritize revenue retention over stringent enforcement, as revocation rates remain low (around 1% for non-compliant hospitals), potentially prioritizing client relationships.^[36]^[37]

Accreditation Standards and Processes

Core Standards and Requirements

The Joint Commission's core accreditation standards encompass key functional areas essential for safe, high-quality healthcare delivery, including patient rights and responsibilities, infection prevention and control, leadership and governance, and medication management. These standards emphasize verifiable processes and practices, such as ensuring patients receive information on their rights to informed consent, privacy, and grievance resolution; implementing evidence-based protocols for hand hygiene, isolation precautions, and surveillance of healthcare-associated infections; requiring organizational leaders to establish performance improvement systems and allocate resources for quality oversight; and mandating secure storage, labeling, and reconciliation of medications to minimize errors.^[3]^[38]^[39] Standards are revised annually, incorporating data from sentinel events—unanticipated occurrences resulting in serious harm or death—to address emerging risks, such as through updates to infection control requirements following outbreaks or medication safety enhancements based on adverse drug event analyses.^[3] The National Patient Safety Goals (NPSGs), a subset of core requirements effective January 2025 for hospitals, target high-priority vulnerabilities with specific elements of performance, including accurate patient identification using two identifiers (NPSG.01.01.01), standardized handoff communications to reduce miscommunication (NPSG.02.03.01), safe medication use via labeling high-alert drugs and reconciling discrepancies (NPSG.03.04.01 and NPSG.03.06.01), central line-associated bloodstream infection prevention through bundle compliance (NPSG.07.04.01), and universal protocol adherence for surgical site verification (NPSG.15 series).^[40]^[41] Reflecting a transition from prescriptive structure- and process-focused criteria to outcome-oriented evaluation, recent reforms under Accreditation 360, effective 2026, integrate measurable performance indicators like Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) scores for patient experience and clinical outcome metrics for areas such as readmission rates and infection incidences, prioritizing demonstrable results over mere compliance documentation.^[16] Organizations must also embed high-reliability organization (HRO) principles, including sensitivity to frontline operations, preoccupation with potential failures, deference to expertise over hierarchy, commitment to resilience through proactive hazard anticipation, and reluctance to oversimplify complex systems, to foster sustained error prevention.^[42]^[43]

Survey and Compliance Evaluation

The Joint Commission conducts triennial unannounced on-site surveys of accredited organizations, typically occurring 30 to 36 months following the previous accreditation decision, to evaluate compliance with standards through direct observation and interaction.^[44] These surveys are performed by multidisciplinary teams of experienced healthcare professionals, including physicians and nurses, who employ the tracer methodology as a core evaluation technique.^[45] Tracer methodology involves selecting individual patients or services and tracing their pathways through the organization—from admission to discharge or service completion—to verify real-time adherence to standards in areas such as patient care processes, infection control, and medication management, prioritizing empirical evidence from actual operations over self-reported data.^[44] In parallel with on-site activities, organizations must submit performance measurement data via the ORYX initiative, which requires quarterly reporting of specified core measures abstracted from patient charts or electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) to assess outcomes in domains like cardiac care and immunization.^[46] Failure to submit required ORYX data or persistent underperformance on core measures can result in a preliminary denial of accreditation, provisional accreditation status imposing corrective action plans, or ultimate revocation of accreditation status.^[47] Organizations facing adverse decisions may appeal through a formal process, including submission of evidence of compliance improvements within designated timelines, reviewed by an Accreditation Appeals Committee.^[44] Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, The Joint Commission temporarily suspended on-site surveys and piloted virtual survey options, allowing remote assessments via video conferences, document reviews, and targeted interviews to maintain accreditation continuity amid travel restrictions.^[48] Post-2020, the process has incorporated hybrid elements, blending virtual components for preliminary reviews or follow-ups with predominant on-site verification, while promoting continuous readiness through tools like the Focused Standards Assessment (FSA), an interactive self-scoring mechanism for organizations to proactively identify and address compliance gaps between surveys.^[44] This self-assessment approach encourages ongoing internal audits and mock tracers to simulate surveyor evaluations, fostering sustained empirical verification of standards adherence independent of external prompts.^[49]

Economic Aspects of Accreditation

Accreditation by The Joint Commission imposes direct fees on healthcare organizations, structured according to factors such as the volume and type of services provided, with an on-site survey fee comprising approximately 60% of the total and annual fees covering the remainder.^[50] ^[33] For hospitals, annual accreditation fees have been estimated at around $46,000, though these scale with organizational size and complexity, often representing a deposit of $1,700 for initial applicants plus ongoing charges.^[1] ^[51] Indirect costs arise from staff time dedicated to documentation, compliance preparation, and survey processes, with one case study of a hospital documenting total survey-related expenses at $326,784, equivalent to about 1% of its annual operating budget.^[52] These costs contribute to broader operational premiums, with accreditation-linked incremental expenses ranging from 0.2% to 1.7% of total hospital costs averaged over an accreditation cycle, though smaller facilities may face proportionally higher burdens relative to their budgets.^[53] ^[54] For large hospitals with operating budgets in the hundreds of millions, such indirect expenditures on compliance activities can accumulate into millions annually, primarily through administrative labor rather than direct quality enhancements.^[52] ^[55] Deemed status under The Joint Commission accreditation grants hospitals certification to meet or exceed Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) conditions of participation, enabling reimbursement for Medicare and Medicaid services without separate federal surveys and thereby creating a strong economic incentive for participation.^[35] ^[56] This lock-in effect ties accreditation to revenue streams, as loss of deemed status could disrupt billing eligibility, though organizations must periodically reapply for CMS approval, with The Joint Commission's hospital program term expiring July 15, 2025.^[57] In response to criticisms of regulatory burden, The Joint Commission reduced approximately 400 requirements across various programs in 2023 and announced further cuts of 714 requirements specifically for hospital accreditation in June 2025 as part of the "Accreditation 360" initiative, shrinking the total from 1,551 to 774 standards and elements of performance to streamline compliance without compromising core safety measures.^[16] ^[58] Empirical analyses indicate that while accreditation correlates with elevated operational costs, evidence linking these expenditures causally to reduced errors remains inconclusive, raising questions about whether added compliance primarily signals adherence rather than demonstrably enhancing fiscal efficiency or error prevention.^[53] ^[36]

Evidence of Impact on Healthcare

Positive Outcomes and Achievements

Accreditation by The Joint Commission has been linked to improvements in healthcare process measures and safety culture, with empirical studies highlighting enhanced adherence to evidence-based protocols. A 2021 systematic review of 38 studies on hospital accreditation effects found consistent positive impacts on process-related performance, including higher compliance with guidelines for infection control and venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis, which are core components of Joint Commission standards.^[59] These gains were observed across diverse settings, with accredited facilities demonstrating statistically significant increases in protocol adherence compared to non-accredited peers, potentially reducing preventable harms like hospital-acquired infections and thromboembolic events.^[59] Implementation of National Patient Safety Goals (NPSGs) under Joint Commission oversight has contributed to targeted reductions in sentinel events, such as wrong-site surgeries and medication errors, through mandatory root cause analyses and risk reduction strategies. Joint Commission data from voluntary reporting indicate temporal declines in reported occurrences of these events following NPSG introductions, with aggregate trends showing decreased frequencies in high-risk categories like surgical never events between 2004 and 2014.^[60] For instance, hospitals achieving high accreditation scores exhibited lower mortality rates for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), suggesting a correlation between rigorous compliance evaluations and improved clinical outcomes.^[61] Broader efficiency metrics also reflect accreditation's benefits, including strengthened organizational safety climates and reduced variability in care delivery. The same 2021 review identified positive associations with efficiency indicators, such as shorter lengths of stay and better resource utilization in accredited institutions, alongside improved staff perceptions of quality and reduced error reporting barriers.^[59] These findings underscore accreditation's role in fostering systemic process enhancements, though primarily associational rather than strictly causal due to confounding factors like concurrent regulatory pressures.^[59]

Empirical Limitations and Critiques

A 2018 observational study analyzing over 4,000 U.S. hospitals found no statistically significant association between Joint Commission accreditation and lower 30-day mortality rates for conditions such as acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia, with accredited hospitals showing mortality rates of 10.2% compared to 10.6% in non-accredited peers.^[62] The same study observed only a modest reduction in 30-day readmission rates (e.g., 19.1% versus 19.6% for medical conditions), suggesting limited causal impact on hard patient outcomes.^[62] Researchers attributed these weak links partly to selection bias, as higher-performing hospitals are more likely to pursue accreditation voluntarily, potentially confounding associations with inherent quality differences rather than the accreditation process itself.^[63] Critiques highlight an overreliance on documentation and procedural checklists, which may foster bureaucratic compliance over substantive clinical innovation or direct patient safety enhancements.^[64] For instance, misinterpretation of standards has led to rigid policies that prioritize paperwork audits, diverting resources from frontline causal drivers of quality like staff training or adaptive error-reduction strategies.^[65] Even The Joint Commission has acknowledged this issue, initiating reviews in 2023 to reduce standards and administrative burdens, implying recognition that excessive process focus can stifle efficiency without proportional gains in care delivery.^[66] Accreditation imposes significant financial and operational costs, particularly burdensome for small or rural facilities, where preparation and surveying can consume 10-15% of annual audit budgets and up to 0.6% of total operating expenses.^[36]^[67] Surveys indicate cost as the primary deterrent for rural hospitals, with accreditation rates below 60% in such settings as of the late 1990s, a disparity persisting due to fixed fees scaled poorly to low-volume operations.^[68] These resource drains often yield unclear net benefits, as evidenced by ongoing sentinel events—unanticipated serious incidents like wrong-site surgeries—in accredited organizations, underscoring that compliance does not reliably avert high-profile systemic failures.^[60]

Major Controversies

Contribution to Opioid Overprescribing

In 2001, the Joint Commission introduced revised pain management standards requiring accredited healthcare organizations to recognize pain assessment and management as integral to quality care, including the routine evaluation of patients' pain intensity—often operationalized as the "fifth vital sign" measured numerically alongside temperature, pulse, respiration, and blood pressure—and the development of individualized treatment plans to address identified pain.^[69]^[70] These standards aimed to combat historical undertreatment of pain but correlated temporally with a dramatic escalation in opioid prescribing: U.S. retail pharmacy opioid prescriptions rose from 76 million annually in 1991 to 259 million in 2012, sufficient for every adult to receive a bottle of pills.^[71]^[72] Critics, including clinicians and researchers, contend that the standards inadvertently incentivized opioid overprescribing by tying accreditation compliance to documented pain relief via low numeric scores (e.g., targeting scores below 4 on a 0-10 scale), pressuring providers to escalate analgesic doses or switch to opioids to meet metrics rather than pursuing comprehensive multimodal approaches. This implementation dynamic, combined with contemporaneous pharmaceutical marketing of opioids as safe for chronic non-cancer pain, amplified prescribing practices that prioritized short-term pain reduction over long-term risks like addiction and overdose.^[73] Empirical analyses highlight this as a contributing causal factor in the epidemic's acceleration during the 2000s, though not the sole driver, with per capita opioid dispensing rates climbing alongside accreditation surveys emphasizing pain documentation.^[74] The Joint Commission has rebutted claims of direct causation, asserting in 2016 clarifications that its standards neither mandated opioid use nor specified treatment modalities, but rather encouraged evidence-based pain management without endorsing any single therapy; it attributes the epidemic primarily to multifaceted influences such as aggressive direct-to-consumer and physician-targeted opioid promotion by manufacturers, alongside regulatory and reimbursement incentives unrelated to accreditation.^[6]^[70] In response to emerging evidence of misuse, the organization revised standards starting in 2016, with updates effective January 1, 2018, incorporating requirements for opioid risk screening (e.g., via tools assessing misuse potential), evaluation of non-opioid and non-pharmacologic alternatives like physical therapy, patient education on safe opioid use, and monitoring of high-risk patients for adverse outcomes such as respiratory depression.^[75] These reforms emphasize multimodal pain strategies and harm reduction, reflecting an acknowledgment of implementation pitfalls while maintaining that the original standards enabled flexible, patient-centered care rather than prescriptive over-reliance on opioids.

Regulatory Burdens and Overreach Claims

Critics of The Joint Commission (TJC) have argued that its accreditation standards represent regulatory overreach, with the number of requirements expanding significantly over time to include micromanagement of operational details, such as specific documentation protocols and facility layouts, without commensurate evidence of safety improvements. Prior to reforms, TJC's hospital accreditation program encompassed 1,551 standards and elements of performance, a figure that ballooned from earlier iterations and drew accusations of mission creep into areas better handled by internal hospital governance or competing accreditors.^[16] ^[76] For instance, TJC's 2023 decision to cease recognizing COLA laboratory accreditations within TJC-accredited facilities was interpreted by some industry observers as an effort to consolidate oversight and protect market share rather than enhance quality, given COLA's CMS-deemed status under CLIA regulations.^[77] ^[78] Empirical evidence of burdens includes provider surveys indicating widespread frustration with compliance demands; a 2023 analysis found that 90% of medical practices reported increased regulatory loads, with TJC standards frequently cited alongside CMS rules as contributors to administrative overload and staff burnout. Healthcare administrators have linked such requirements to heightened stress during accreditation surveys, with studies showing elevated perceived stress levels among nursing and administrative staff in anticipation of TJC site visits. Deregulation advocates, often from conservative policy circles, contend that these mandates inflate U.S. healthcare costs—where per capita spending reached $12,555 in 2022, far exceeding peers like Germany ($7,383) or Canada ($6,319)—by diverting resources to paperwork over patient care, contrasting with less prescriptive systems in other high-income nations that achieve comparable outcomes without mandatory accreditation.^[79] ^[80] ^[81] In defense, TJC maintains that standards are evidence-based and adapt to emerging data on risks, with recent cuts—including 400 requirements eliminated in 2023 and an additional 714 in 2025 under the "Accreditation 360" initiative—demonstrating responsiveness to stakeholder input on administrative fatigue. These reforms reduced the hospital standards count by approximately 50% to 774, aiming to prioritize high-impact areas while streamlining surveys. However, skeptics from provider advocacy groups argue that such reductions are reactive measures prompted by mounting complaints and competitive pressures rather than proactive reassessment of necessity, failing to address underlying incentives for standard proliferation in a nonprofit accreditor reliant on fees.^[16] ^[82] ^[83]

Alternatives and Market Position

Domestic Competitors

DNV Healthcare, a division of the Norwegian classification society DNV GL, emerged as a significant alternative following its receipt of CMS deeming authority for hospitals in 2010.^[84] Its NIAHO accreditation program uniquely integrates the ISO 9001 quality management system standards with Medicare Conditions of Participation, emphasizing continuous process improvement, internal audits, and leadership accountability to foster a proactive risk management culture.^[84] Unlike the Joint Commission's triennial unannounced surveys, DNV conducts annual collaborative on-site assessments, which some facilities view as less adversarial and more supportive of ongoing compliance.^[85] By 2025, DNV had accredited its 1,000th U.S. healthcare facility, reflecting steady growth among hospitals prioritizing quality system certification alongside regulatory compliance.^[85] The Center for Improvement in Healthcare Quality (CIHQ) offers CMS-deemed accreditation primarily for acute care hospitals, psychiatric facilities, and critical access hospitals, positioning itself as a cost-competitive option for smaller or specialized providers.^[86] CIHQ's pricing includes a flat annual fee of $5,950 for hospitals with fewer than 50 beds, with a guarantee to match or undercut competitors' overall survey fees, potentially reducing financial burdens compared to larger accreditors.^[87] While its scope is narrower—focusing on hospital-specific deeming without broad ambulatory or long-term care programs—CIHQ provides member services at no extra cost and tools for compliance preparation, appealing to facilities seeking streamlined, budget-conscious accreditation.^[88] The Accreditation Commission for Health Care (ACHC) accredits a range of providers, including acute and critical access hospitals, but concentrates more heavily on post-acute sectors such as home health, hospice, and durable medical equipment suppliers.^[89] Its hospital programs emphasize educational support from industry-expert surveyors and payor recognition, though ACHC's hospital footprint remains limited relative to general acute care dominance.^[90] ACHC's model suits organizations in niche or continuum-of-care networks, offering certifications like those for joint replacement or wound care alongside core accreditation at potentially lower costs than comprehensive hospital-focused alternatives.^[91] CMS's expansion of deeming authority to multiple organizations since the early 2010s has enabled these competitors to erode the Joint Commission's traditional near-monopoly, with the latter accrediting approximately 3,000 U.S. hospitals amid a total acute care market of around 5,000 facilities.^[61] Alternatives like DNV and CIHQ have captured growing shares, particularly post-2010 approvals, as hospitals respond to demands for flexible, less burdensome accreditation pathways.^[92] This competition, driven by CMS policy allowing provider choice for Medicare certification, underscores a diversifying market where facilities weigh factors like survey frequency, cost, and integrated quality frameworks.^[93]

Comparative Effectiveness

Empirical analyses of patient outcomes reveal no statistically significant differences in 30-day mortality or readmission rates between hospitals accredited by The Joint Commission and those accredited by alternatives such as DNV or the Healthcare Facilities Accreditation Program (HFAP).^[61] ^[62] A cross-sectional study of 2,764 U.S. hospitals using 2018 data from the American Hospital Association and CMS Hospital Compare found limited overall impact of accrediting agency on outcomes, with no broad disparities in central line-associated bloodstream infections or most readmission metrics.^[61] Minor variations emerged in specific conditions, such as a 0.22% higher COPD mortality rate under DNV accreditation (adjusted coefficient b=0.225, P<0.01), but these did not extend to heart failure or surgical readmissions after covariate adjustment.^[61] DNV's accreditation model integrates ISO 9001 quality management principles, emphasizing annual onsite surveys and internal audits to drive ongoing process enhancements and employee involvement in safety protocols.^[85] This contrasts with The Joint Commission's triennial unannounced surveys, which prioritize prescriptive compliance over iterative refinement, potentially limiting adaptive responses to emerging risks.^[85] Such structural differences may incentivize innovation in alternative systems by reducing emphasis on periodic "check-the-box" preparations, allowing resources to focus on causal improvements in care delivery rather than survey readiness.^[85] The Joint Commission's historical primacy in CMS deeming authority, granted since 1965, creates switching barriers including extended validation timelines and operational disruptions, often spanning months to years per provider accounts.^[94] These frictions, compounded by familiarity with established standards, sustain market dominance despite equivalent outcome metrics across accreditors.^[94] In a competitive framework, this equivalence implies potential for cost reductions through provider choice without quality erosion, as rigid incumbency may inflate administrative burdens absent differential patient benefits.^[61]

International Expansion

Joint Commission International Operations

Joint Commission International (JCI), established in 1994 as the international arm of The Joint Commission, provides accreditation to over 1,000 healthcare organizations across more than 70 countries as of 2025.^[95]^[96] This expansion targets facilities in regions with growing medical tourism, such as the Middle East and Southeast Asia, where U.S.-derived standards are adopted to signal quality to international patients seeking treatments like elective surgeries. JCI accreditation emphasizes patient safety protocols, governance, and clinical processes aligned with evidence-based practices, often pursued by hospitals to enhance competitiveness in global markets.^[97] JCI standards are largely harmonized with those of The Joint Commission but incorporate adaptations for international contexts, including provisions for varying regulatory frameworks and cultural factors such as language access and local ethical norms in patient rights.^[97] Survey fees for JCI accreditation exceed domestic equivalents, typically starting around $46,000 for initial hospital surveys plus additional costs for surveyor travel and logistics, reflecting the operational demands of on-site evaluations in remote locations.^[98] These standards require organizations to demonstrate compliance through unannounced surveys every three years, with measurable performance indicators like infection control and medication management tailored to resource-limited settings.^[95] Empirical studies indicate positive associations between JCI accreditation and select outcomes, including a 1.2% reduction in ICU readmissions and a 20% decrease in medication errors in accredited facilities, particularly in developing regions where baseline quality varies widely.^[54] In Middle Eastern hospitals, accreditation has correlated with lower excess lengths of stay in intensive care units, attributed to standardized infection prevention measures, though causal links remain debated due to confounding factors like concurrent national reforms.^[99] Challenges persist in diverse environments, where JCI's rigorous U.S.-centric requirements can clash with local laws—such as data privacy regulations in the EU or resource constraints in low-income countries—leading to higher non-compliance rates and adaptation delays compared to uniform domestic applications.^[100] Independent analyses highlight that while process improvements are evident, broader mortality reductions are inconsistent, underscoring the limits of accreditation as a standalone intervention amid varying enforcement and cultural adherence.^[59]^[101]

Global Accreditation Challenges

The imposition of Joint Commission International (JCI) accreditation standards, derived primarily from U.S. healthcare practices, has faced criticism for cultural mismatches in non-Western contexts, where local norms and resource constraints hinder seamless adoption. In Israel, physicians and paramedical staff exhibited significant resistance, arguing that U.S.-centric standards compromise professional autonomy and fail to align with national healthcare culture, leading to calls for localized alternatives.^[102] Similarly, Chinese hospital leaders reported challenges in staff engagement and mindset shifts, with resistance stemming from conflicts between JCI requirements—such as extensive documentation—and entrenched local routines, compounded by language barriers during surveys.^[103] These issues underscore variable compliance rates outside the U.S., as frontline workers revert to prior behaviors post-accreditation, questioning the universality of exported metrics without tailored adaptations.^[103] High financial burdens further exacerbate accessibility challenges, particularly in low-resource settings. Preparation costs for JCI accreditation in hospitals with 300 or more beds average nearly $250,000 USD, encompassing consulting, training, and infrastructure upgrades, which strain budgets in developing countries already facing limited funding for core services.^[104] Leaders in such contexts have highlighted prohibitive expenses for physical safety renovations and ongoing compliance, potentially diverting resources from direct patient care without guaranteed proportional benefits.^[103] Critics note increasing concerns over workload and fiscal sustainability, as accreditation fees and maintenance impose recurring demands that may not yield empirically justified returns in resource-scarce environments.^[100] Empirical evaluations reveal limited evidence supporting JCI's long-term superiority over local or regional accreditation systems in diverse global settings. Systematic reviews of hospital accreditation, including JCI, indicate mixed results on clinical outcomes like mortality and infection rates, with no consistent improvements in readmissions or patient satisfaction, and insufficient data on sustained impacts beyond process measures.^[59] In non-U.S. contexts, preparation phases show short-term gains in efficiency and safety culture, but post-accreditation adherence varies due to cultural and operational divergences, lacking robust comparative studies against indigenous systems that may better suit local causal factors like epidemiology and governance.^[59] ^[102] JCI's expansion competes with alternatives like World Health Organization (WHO) quality frameworks and regional bodies, which offer lower or no-cost options tailored to specific contexts, amplifying scrutiny of its fee-based model. As a not-for-profit entity reliant on international accreditation revenues, JCI has accredited over 1,000 organizations worldwide since 1999, yet this profit-generating approach—contrasting with subsidized local programs—raises questions about incentives prioritizing expansion over evidence of additive value in underserved regions.^[105] ^[106] Such dynamics highlight tensions between global standardization and context-specific realism, with critics advocating for hybrid models integrating JCI elements into regionally adapted systems to mitigate imposition without proven causal efficacy.^[102]

Recent Initiatives and Reforms

Standards Updates Post-2023

In 2023, The Joint Commission eliminated approximately 400 duplicative or outdated requirements across its various accreditation programs, effective January 1, as part of an initiative to alleviate administrative burdens on healthcare providers while maintaining emphasis on patient safety essentials.^[16] ^[107] This reduction targeted redundant elements identified through internal reviews, responding to longstanding provider feedback on compliance inefficiencies without compromising core quality metrics.^[108] Building on this, effective July 1, 2024, The Joint Commission introduced a fully revised Infection Prevention and Control (IC) chapter with new and updated requirements applicable to hospitals, critical access hospitals, and other settings, streamlining processes to prioritize evidence-based practices.^[109] ^[110] These revisions incorporated alignments with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) 2024 updates to the Guideline for Isolation Precautions, emphasizing transmission prevention through targeted interventions like device-associated infection protocols and environmental controls.^[111] The changes reduced prescriptive elements in favor of performance-oriented expectations, aiming to redirect resources toward high-impact domains such as antimicrobial stewardship programs, which require hospitals to demonstrate oversight of antibiotic use to combat resistance.^[109] These updates were informed by analyses of survey data, error trends, and stakeholder input from accredited organizations, reflecting an evidence-based approach to refine standards without diluting accountability for outcomes like healthcare-associated infections.^[110] Initial field reports indicate modest decreases in documentation time for IC compliance, though comprehensive studies on long-term effects, such as infection rate correlations, remain forthcoming as of late 2024.^[112]

2025 Accreditation 360 and Beyond

In June 2025, The Joint Commission announced Accreditation 360: The New Standard, a comprehensive revision to its hospital accreditation framework set to take effect January 1, 2026. This overhaul eliminates 714 requirements from the existing standards, building on a 2023 reduction of 400, to diminish regulatory volume and emphasize measurable outcomes over procedural checklists.^[113]^[82] The changes consolidate standards into 14 National Performance Goals (NPGs), supplanting prior National Patient Safety Goals, with a novel emphasis on nurse staffing that mandates registered nurses to directly provide or oversee patient care services around the clock.^[114]^[115] A dedicated "above regulation" chapter further distinguishes mandatory compliance from optional, aspirational practices, allowing organizations to pursue advanced quality enhancements without enforced uniformity.^[40] Complementing these structural shifts, The Joint Commission hosted its inaugural UNIFY 2025 conference on September 16–17 in Washington, D.C., gathering clinicians, policymakers, and executives to deliberate on patient safety innovations, including artificial intelligence applications and health data interoperability.^[116] The event underscored Accreditation 360's intent to foster collaborative, forward-oriented quality improvement amid evolving healthcare demands. Prospects for Accreditation 360 hinge on its capacity to redirect focus from input-heavy mandates to verifiable results, potentially yielding efficiency gains by freeing resources for clinical priorities over documentation. However, the retention of foundational requirements alongside new imperatives, such as staffing protocols, tempers the extent of deregulation, as these could impose fresh constraints without proven causal uplift in outcomes. Rigorous, data-driven evaluation post-2026—tracking metrics like error rates, readmissions, and costs—remains imperative to discern whether reduced prescriptiveness enhances adaptability and safety or merely redistributes compliance efforts.^[117]^[118]

References

[1]
The Joint Commission - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf - NIH
Mar 16, 2023 · The Joint Commission (TJC) is an independent, not-for-profit organization created in 1951 that accredits more than 20000 United States ...
[2]
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations ...
A federal government website managed and paid for by the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244
[3]
Standards | Joint Commission
Joint Commission standards are the basis of an objective evaluation process that can help health care organizations measure, assess, and improve performance ...
[4]
The Joint Commission Deserves Some Blame for the Opioid Crisis
Dr. Baker alleges another misconception about the Joint Commission is that it said pain must be assessed for all patients. He wrote, “The original pain ...
[5]
[PDF] History of The Joint Commission's Pain Standards Lessons for ...
In 2000, The Joint Commission introduced pain standards emphasizing quantitative measures, which were later changed due to concerns about adverse events.
[6]
The Joint Commission seeks to clarify 'misperceptions' of its pain ...
Apr 27, 2016 · The Joint Commission's pain standards are unfairly blamed for the current prescription opioid epidemic because of “misperceptions” of what it requires ...
[7]
The Opioid Epidemic: It's Time to Place Blame Where It Belongs - PMC
The Joint Commission also framed pain management as a patient's rights issue, inferring that inadequate control of a subjective symptom would lead to sanctions.
[8]
Ernest Amory Codman and the End Result Idea in Surgical Quality
Dec 24, 2022 · A revolutionary idea that he called the End Result system, the seemingly unachievable goal of reaching perfection in surgery: complete recovery without death.
[9]
The “Minimum Standard” document | ACS
As early as 1910 Ernest A. Codman of Boston was the first to point out the deplorable state of hospital records, and the corresponding problems with patient ...Missing: system | Show results with:system
[10]
Ernest A. Codman and the idea of medical accountability
Jun 27, 2024 · Part I is where Codman introduces the “end result idea,” a plan designed to collect clinical data and analyze surgical outcomes in terms of ...
[11]
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations
The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, founded in 1951, is a private, not-for-profit organization that evaluates and accredits ...<|separator|>
[12]
A (Brief) History of Health Policy in the United States - PMC
In 1951, the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH) formed to improve the quality of hospital care. In 1952, the Federal Security Agency ...
[13]
The evolution of the Joint Commission's nursing standards - PubMed
This article discusses changes in the Joint Commission nursing care standards from 1953 through 1991 and the relationship between the Joint Commission and ...Missing: initial focus structural post- WWII
[14]
[PDF] Medicare and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare
The federal Medicare program was created in 1965. Since its inception, the. Medicare program has accepted, or "deemed," Joint Commission accreditation as ...
[15]
Hospital Oversight in Medicare: Accreditation and Deeming Authority
JCAHO's hospital deeming authority was written into law when Medicare was created in 1965. Several other approved accrediting organizations, including AOA, were ...Figure 1 · Federal Oversight · Accreditation And Quality...<|separator|>
[16]
Joint Commission Launches a Transformative Approach to ...
Jun 30, 2025 · Joint Commission enables and affirms the highest standards of healthcare quality and patient safety for all. Founded in 1951, it is the nation's ...<|separator|>
[17]
[PDF] The Joint Commission History Timeline
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH) is created as an independent, not-for-profit organization in Chicago, Illinois. 1964-65. Congress passes ...Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
[18]
An Overview of the Joint Commission's ORYX Initiative and ...
ORYX is the Joint Commission's initiative to integrate performance measurement into the accreditation process. Beginning with accredited hospitals and.
[19]
CMS/Joint Commission Hospital Quality Measures—Is It the Federal…
Sep 2, 2007 · This led to the 1997 launch of JCAHO's ORYX initiative, introducing performance measures as a condition of accreditation for hospitals, long ...
[20]
National Patient Safety Goals | PSNet - AHRQ
Mar 27, 2024 · The first set of NPSGs was developed in 2002 and implemented ... Joint Commission, to focus on timely and crucial patient safety issues.
[21]
https://www.jointcommission.org/en-us/about-us/
[22]
The Joint Commission Welcomes Six New Members to Board of ...
Dec 18, 2024 · The Joint Commission's Board of Commissioners consists of 21 voting members, including physicians, administrators, nurses, employers, quality ...Missing: governance structure composition
[23]
Board of Commissioners | The Joint Commission
The Board consists of 21 voting members, including physicians, administrators, nurses, educators, and safety, quality, and innovation experts.
[24]
Our Team | Joint Commission
Board of Directors. The Board of Directors includes physicians, nurses, business executives, administrators, and others who have expertise in health care ...
[25]
Joint Commission Resources Board of Directors
Joint Commission Resources Board of Directors ; Jill Hoggard Green, PhD, RN, FAAN – Chair Healthcare Executive ; J. William (Will) B. Morrow, JD, MBA – Vice ChairMissing: governance structure composition
[26]
Jonathan B. Perlin - Joint Commission
Jonathan B. Perlin, MD, PhD, became the seventh President and Chief Executive Officer of the Joint Commission enterprise on March 1, 2022.Missing: roles | Show results with:roles
[27]
Joint Commission names next president and CEO | AHA News
Sep 22, 2021 · Among other leadership roles, Dr. Perlin previously served as under secretary for health and senior advisor to the secretary at the ...
[28]
Meet our officers and executive leadership team. - Joint Commission
Profile: Officer - Jonathan Perlin. Jonathan B. Perlin. President and Chief Executive Officer ; Profile: Officer - Jean Courtney. Jean E. Courtney. Executive ...
[29]
Joint Commission On Accreditation Of Healthcare Organizations
The Joint Commission is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit for charitable purposes, with $207.5M revenue and $18.2M net income in 2023. It provided first-class travel to ...
[30]
Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Approval of Application by The ...
May 2, 2022 · This final notice announces our decision to approve The Joint Commission for continued recognition as a national accrediting organization for hospitals.Missing: reliance | Show results with:reliance
[31]
Joint Commission under fire - Modern Healthcare
Mar 11, 2007 · The high-profile problems uncovered at two hospitals that were accredited by the Joint Commission have led to renewed criticism from ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[32]
Accreditation Pricing - Joint Commission
Accreditation fees are calculated based on the services provided and your average daily census. There are two components to the fees: annual fees which are ...
[33]
[PDF] 2021 Behavioral Health Care and Human Services Pricing Worksheet
Joint Commission accreditation fees are based on a combination of an on-site survey fee billed during the year of the organization's on-site survey and an ...
[34]
Joint Commission Resources Inc - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica
Revenue. $62.9M (2023) · Expenses. $59.5M (2023) · Total Assets. $59.7M (2023) · Total Liabilities. $29.6M (2023).
[35]
What is Accreditation? - Joint Commission
The Joint Commission, founded in 1951, is the largest U.S. healthcare accreditor. ... accreditation surveys and ensure organizations meet high performance ...Accreditation Standards · Who We Accredit · Federal Deemed Status
[36]
A Cost/Benefit Analysis of TJC Accreditation
TJC accreditation typically makes up 10-15% of the annual fees a hospital pays for a financial audit, and the surveying process can cost somewhere in the ...
[37]
Investigation: Joint Commission rarely revokes accreditation from ...
Sep 11, 2017 · The Joint Commission revoked accreditation for just 1% of hospitals out of compliance with Medicare. More than 30 hospitals retained their ...<|separator|>
[38]
Infection Prevention and Control & Antibiotic Stewardship
The Joint Commission curated a collection of resources to help organizations in their efforts to prevent infections and properly manage the use of antibiotics.
[39]
Medication Management and Safety Consulting - Joint Commission
It's critically important to design processes that, in addition to meeting Joint Commission and other regulatory requirements, provide optimal patient safety.Missing: leadership | Show results with:leadership
[40]
National Patient Safety Goals (NPSGs) - Joint Commission
The National Patient Safety Goals (NPSGs) are annual objectives developed by The Joint Commission to address critical areas of patient safety, ...Missing: 2002 | Show results with:2002
[41]
[PDF] 2025 Hospital National Patient Safety Goals - Joint Commission
The 2025 goals include correct patient identification, improving staff communication, safe medicine use, preventing infection, and preventing surgical mistakes.
[42]
High Reliability | Joint Commission
High reliability means consistent excellence in quality and safety across all services maintained over long periods of time. This high level of performance ...
[43]
High-Reliability Health Care: Getting There from Here - PMC
Since 2009, the Joint Commission has required the leadership of all health care organizations that it accredits to “create and maintain a culture of safety ...
[44]
Accreditation Process - Joint Commission
A fundamental aspect of the on-site survey process is the tracer methodology. The tracer methodology uses information from an organization to follow the ...
[45]
What is the Tracer Methodology? - Joint Commission
A key part of The Joint Commission's on-site survey process, the tracer methodology uses information from an organization to follow the experience of care, ...
[46]
Accreditation Performance Measurement - Joint Commission
Joint Commission-accredited hospitals and assisted living communities are required to submit performance measurement data to ORYX via the Direct Data Submission ...
[47]
Support Center: Measurement - Joint Commission
The Joint Commission's ORYX® initiative integrates performance measurement data into the accreditation process. Joint Commission-accredited hospitals and ...Cardiac Care Measures · Immunization Measures · Chart Abstracted Measures
[48]
The Joint Commission pilots virtual surveys during pandemic
Jul 9, 2020 · The organization says it piloted a new virtual process for life safety and environment of care surveys at two facilities in March.Missing: hybrid | Show results with:hybrid
[49]
Support Center: Survey or Review Preparation - Joint Commission
A key part of The Joint Commission's on-site survey process, the tracer methodology uses information from the organization to follow the experience of care, ...
[50]
[PDF] Accreditation and Certification Fee Policies
The JCI accreditation and certification survey fee is based on several factors, including the volume and type of services provided by the organization and ...
[51]
[PDF] The Joint Commission
This document is a tool for your organization to calculate the estimated total fees, including the on-site survey fee and annual fees, for a. 3-year period.
[52]
The Cost of Accreditation: One Hospital's Experience
Results: Documented and estimated costs for the survey process totaled $326,784, which represented about 1 percent of the hospital's operating budget for 1989.
[53]
Health services accreditation: what is the evidence that the benefits ...
Aug 13, 2013 · The incremental costs ranged from 0.2 to 1.7% of total costs averaged over the accreditation cycle. The benefit studies were inconclusive in ...
[54]
Impact of joint commission international accreditation on ... - NIH
Jun 17, 2025 · To illuminate the benefits of Joint Commission International (JCI) accreditation and other experiences related to the accreditation process.
[55]
The evidence base for US joint commission hospital accreditation ...
Jun 23, 2022 · This study detected several types of evidentiary problems. In some cases, The Joint Commission may have created overly broad standards that go ...Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
[56]
Medicare and Medicaid Accreditation and Deemed Status - NCBI - NIH
Sep 4, 2023 · Research accrediting organizations approved by the CMS, such as The Joint Commission, the AAAHC, or the Community Health Accreditation Partner ( ...
[57]
Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Application From The Joint ...
Jun 23, 2025 · The Joint Commission's (TJC's) current term of approval for their hospital accreditation program expires July 15, 2025. II. Application Approval ...Missing: ties | Show results with:ties
[58]
Joint Commission Online - Jul. 2, 2025
Jul 3, 2025 · And, building on the reduction of 400 requirements announced in 2023, Joint Commission is removing an additional 714 requirements from the ...
[59]
The impact of hospital accreditation on the quality of healthcare
Oct 6, 2021 · Our results indicate a consistent positive effect of hospital accreditation on safety culture, process-related performance measures, efficiency, and the ...
[60]
Sentinel Events | Joint Commission
By identifying causes, trends, settings and outcomes of sentinel events, The Joint Commission can provide critical information in the prevention of sentinel ...
[61]
Association between hospital accrediting agencies and hospital ...
Post-hoc analysis revealed that HFAP accredited hospitals have higher HF mortality rates than Joint Commission hospitals, by 0.46%. After controlling for ...
[62]
Association between patient outcomes and accreditation in US ...
Oct 18, 2018 · For patients, an association between accreditation and mortality rates would allow them to improve their likelihood of a good outcome by ...Missing: economic | Show results with:economic
[63]
Association between patient outcomes and accreditation in US ...
Oct 18, 2018 · US hospital accreditation by independent organizations is not associated with lower mortality, and is only slightly associated with reduced readmission rates.
[64]
Myth or fact? “The Joint Commission made us do it”
Jun 7, 2024 · The Joint Commission leaves it to individual organizations to establish policies that meet the commission's standards and other requirements.
[65]
Are organizations only held accountable to Joint Commission ...
Mar 1, 2024 · Over-interpretation or misinterpretation of required standards for Joint Commission accreditation may lead to overly strict policies, ...
[66]
Joint Commission Standards Review: Fewer, More Meaningful ...
Jan 11, 2023 · The Joint Commission wants to have fewer, more meaningful requirements, while also reducing the burden on already overburdened health care workers and ...
[67]
Counting the costs of accreditation in acute care: an activity-based ...
Sep 28, 2025 · The incremental costs of accreditation ranged from 0.03% of total operat- ing costs for a specialist teaching hospital, to 0.6% of operating ...<|separator|>
[68]
why are rural hospitals less likely to be JCAHO accredited? - PubMed
Survey results show that the largest factor contributing to rural hospital deterrence to seeking accreditation is cost.
[69]
Opioid Crisis: Scrap Pain as 5th Vital Sign? - MedPage Today
Apr 19, 2016 · In 2001, the Joint Commission rolled out its Pain Management Standards, which helped grow the idea of pain as a "fifth vital sign." It ...
[70]
The Joint Commission and the Opioid Epidemic - JAMA Network
Jul 4, 2017 · The Joint Commission's 2000 standards for pain management “were a bold attempt to address widespread underassessment and undertreatment of pain.”Missing: 2016 | Show results with:2016
[71]
Opioids for chronic pain: a knowledge assessment of nonpain ...
Mar 10, 2016 · The number of opioid prescriptions in the USA has risen dramatically over the past 25 years, increasing from 76 million in 1991 to 259 million ...
[72]
CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain
Mar 18, 2016 · In 2012, health care providers wrote 259 million prescriptions for opioid pain medication, enough for every adult in the United States to have ...Missing: 1991 | Show results with:1991
[73]
Physical Therapists' Role in Solving the Opioid Epidemic - jospt
Apr 30, 2018 · ... pain as a “fifth vital sign.” These new standards required all health care providers to ask patients about their pain. The medical ...
[74]
Clinical solutions to chronic pain and the opiate epidemic
The 2001 example of implementation that said “Pain is considered a 'fifth' vital sign in the hospital's care of patients” was changed in 2002 to say “Pain used ...<|separator|>
[75]
R3 Report Issue 11: Pain Assessment and Management Standards ...
Dec 20, 2017 · Effective Jan. 1, 2018, new and revised pain assessment and management standards will be applicable to all Joint Commission-accredited hospitals.Missing: 2011 non- risk
[76]
Joint Commission Cuts Standards by 50% - Nurse.org
Jul 2, 2025 · Back in July 2023, they shaved off 200 standards for ambulatory and behavioral health centers, critical access hospitals, labs, and nursing ...
[77]
What's Behind Joint Commission Move to Not Accept COLA Labs?
Jan 23, 2023 · The Joint Commission's (TJC) decision to no longer recognize CLIA accreditations issued by COLA in “TJC-accredited facilities.”Missing: overlap criticism
[78]
Misinformation about Accrediting Bodies - COLA.org
Jul 19, 2023 · CMS grants CLIA status, COLA holds it, and hospital accreditors cannot remove it. COLA is physician-led with high customer satisfaction.Missing: overlap criticism
[79]
Survey: 9 In 10 Medical Practices Hit By Bigger Regulatory Burdens ...
Becker's Hospital Review reports on ... Survey: 9 In 10 Medical Practices Hit By Bigger Regulatory Burdens ... The Joint Commission, which sets quality ...Missing: criticism | Show results with:criticism
[80]
Perceived Stress Among Nursing and Administration Staff Related to ...
The present study provides evidence that nurses in administrative roles experience increased stress associated with a Joint Commission site visit. This study ...Missing: compliance | Show results with:compliance
[81]
How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries?
Apr 9, 2025 · This chart collection examines how U.S. health spending compares to health spending in other OECD countries that are similarly large and ...Missing: accreditation regulations
[82]
Joint Commission streamlines accreditation process, removes over ...
Jun 30, 2025 · The Joint Commission June 30 announced a new, streamlined process that removes 714 requirements from its hospital accreditation program.Missing: 2023 | Show results with:2023<|separator|>
[83]
Joint Commission Standards Receive Significant Updates - ASHE
Jun 30, 2025 · The updates include a new "Physical Environment" chapter, reduced standards, 714 removed requirements, and standards will be public.
[84]
NIAHO® accreditation for hospitals - DNV
We include ISO 9001 in our standards to shift organizations to a transparent culture that proactively identifies and elevates risk before there is an adverse ...
[85]
DNV Accreditation: An Alternative to Joint Commission for Hospitals
Jul 23, 2025 · Today, U.S. healthcare executives have multiple accreditation options beyond the Joint Commission, including DNV accreditation, each with ...
[86]
CIHQ Accreditation
As a deemed-status provider, CIHQ provides hospitals with the tools and support they need to successfully achieve accreditation.Missing: advantages | Show results with:advantages
[87]
Acute Care Hospital Accreditation Pricing Information - CIHQ
Price Guarantee CIHQ will match or better the overall survey fees of any other accrediting provider. Number of Licensed Beds, Annual Fee. < 50 Beds, $5,950.Missing: advantages | Show results with:advantages
[88]
The CIHQ Difference!
Cost. Member services are provided to CIHQ accredited hospitals at no additional charge.
[89]
Accreditation 101 | ACHC.ORG
Why ACHC Accreditation? · A credential · A differentiator · A partner · Relevant Standards · Educational Focus · Industry-Expert Surveyors · Payor Recognition.
[90]
ACHC FAQs | ACHC.ORG - Accreditation Commission for Health Care
ACHC Certification is a focused review and evaluation of a defined program within a healthcare organization as measured against recognized standards for ...Missing: sectors | Show results with:sectors
[91]
[PDF] accreditation requirements for acute care hospitals
Jan 10, 2025 · ACHC offers a range of programs to meet the accreditation, certification, and related education needs of healthcare organizations across the ...
[92]
Selecting the Best Agency for Healthcare Accreditation
Sep 30, 2024 · Need help selecting a healthcare accreditation agency? Learn key differences between TJC, DNV, CIHQ, and more to make the best choice for ...
[93]
[PDF] Accrediting Organization Contacts for Prospective Clients - CMS
CMS-Approved Accrediting Organizations. Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care (AAAHC). 5250 Old Orchard Road, Ste 200 www.aaahc.org. Skokie. IL ...Missing: 2025 | Show results with:2025
[94]
DNV Healthcare, Joint Commission emphasize differences
DNV Healthcare became the first new company in 40 years to win deeming status from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
[95]
Hospital Accreditation Program | Joint Commission International
When you choose JCI as your accreditation partner, you benefit from our decades of expertise. More than 1,000 health care organizations in over 70 countries ...
[96]
About Joint Commission International
JCI is the industry-leading international accreditation body, with over 1,000 accredited and certified organizations. JCI is trusted globally across diverse ...
[97]
Standards | Joint Commission International
JCI standards serve as the foundation of an evaluation process that can help health care organizations like yours measure, assess, and improve performance.
[98]
JCI Accreditation - Health Tourism
The average JCI accreditation fee for a full hospital survey in 2010 was $46,000 USD. The cost of accreditation depends on the size of the health care ...
[99]
[PDF] The impact of hospital accreditation in selected Middle East countries
Accreditation was also found to result in a reduction in excess LOS in mental health and ICU wards (Al-Sughayir, 2016; Janati et al., 2016) which resulted in ...
[100]
Impact of joint commission international accreditation on ...
In Australia, accreditation costs 0.03%–0.6% of the total hospital operating costs per year. ... Effect of Joint Commission International accreditation on ...
[101]
The Effectiveness of the Joint Commission International ... - NIH
Feb 2, 2021 · Mortality rates may not have improved as a result of pursuing the JCIA since its focus is more on improving the process, which might not ...
[102]
Involvement and skepticism towards the JCI Accreditation process ...
Dec 14, 2021 · To investigate the attitudes, cultural norms, and satisfaction of the different sectors regarding the accreditation process, and to suggest ways to integrate ...
[103]
Perceptions of Chinese hospital leaders on joint commission ...
Oct 29, 2023 · The qualitative study found that eight factors influenced hospital leadership to pursue JCI accreditation, five challenges were identified with ...Missing: criticisms | Show results with:criticisms
[104]
Hospitals often surprised by the fully-loaded cost of international ...
The average cost for a hospital of 300 beds or more to prepare for accreditation by JCI or another accrediting body can run nearly $250,000 (USD) after all is ...
[105]
About Us | Joint Commission International
An independent, not-for-profit organization, Joint Commission International (JCI) identifies, measures, and shares best practices in quality and patient safety ...Regional Offices · Find JCI-accredited... · Why Choose Us · Our TeamMissing: competition regional motive
[106]
[PDF] Accreditation and other external quality assessment systems for ...
Resources: numerous standards for differing types of medical organisations. Joint Commission International (JCI) www.jcrinc.com. Established by JCAHO in 1992 ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[107]
The Joint Commission Is Eliminating 14% of Accreditation Standard
Jan 3, 2023 · The Joint Commission announced that, effective January 1, 2023, it is eliminating 168 (or 14%) of its accreditation standards across its accreditation programs ...Missing: duplicative | Show results with:duplicative
[108]
The Joint Commission revises quality, safety standards | AHA News
Dec 20, 2022 · We support The Joint Commission's immediate decision to eliminate outdated and duplicative standards and look forward to the benefits that ...Missing: rules | Show results with:rules
[109]
R3 Report Issue 41: New and Revised Requirements for Infection ...
Dec 19, 2023 · Effective July 1, 2024, The Joint Commission approved new and revised requirements for the “Infection Prevention and Control” (IC) chapter for critical access ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[110]
Joint Commission Online - Jan. 10, 2024
January 10, 2024. Effective July 1, 2024, a fully revised Infection Prevention and Control (IC) chapter, including new and revised requirements, ...
[111]
General Questions about the 2024 Joint Commission Standards for ...
How do the updated Joint Commission Standards align with the 2024 CDC/HICPAC Guideline to Prevent Transmission of Pathogens in Health Care Settings? May 8, 2024.
[112]
The Joint Commission's 2024 Infection Control Standards - netec
Jan 28, 2025 · The Joint Commission announced significant changes to infection control standards taking effect July 1, 2024.
[113]
Accreditation 360: The New Standard FAQs - Joint Commission
Accreditation 360 is Joint Commission's (JC) transformational approach to hospital and healthcare accreditation and certification announced in June 2025.Joint Commission (jc)... · The Survey Process · Data-Driven Certification...
[114]
National Performance Goals (NPGs) - Joint Commission
Effective January 1, 2026, Joint Commission has introduced National Performance Goals (NPGs), replacing National Patient Safety Goals with measurable, ...
[115]
https://www.aacn.org/newsroom/nurse-staffing-identified-as-new-joint-commission-national-performance-goal
[116]
Joint Commission Online - Sept. 24, 2025
Sep 24, 2025 · Joint Commission's inaugural UNIFY™ 2025, held Sept. 16–17 in Washington, D.C., was a resounding success, thanks to the dynamic speakers and ...
[117]
Accreditation Update: Changes to the Joint Commission Standards
Jul 31, 2025 · Described as “the most significant, comprehensive evolution of the Joint Commission's accreditation process since 1965,” Accreditation 360 will ...
[118]
Joint Commission accreditation revamp to cut 700-plus standards
Jun 30, 2025 · The Joint Commission has unveiled an overhaul to its healthcare accreditation and certification process that will cut hundreds of requirements for hospitals.