Accreditation manual for nephrology

The IRS did not develop a new theory of accreditation but drew up a methodo logy for assessing public policies, which internalised accreditation philos ophy and was based on a theory of the decision-making process. Two questions underlie this theory: 1) whether health is a professional org anisation, a company or a public policy, 2) whether accreditation in the in ternationally accepted meaning of the term is the most effective system of continuous improvement for this sector as it is organised in Italy. Accordi ng to the IRS, health is all three of these things and accreditation respon ds adequately to the complexity of the sector. In fact.. a) internalises professional knowledge land is therefore ideal for a profes sional organisation); b) it triggers a process of continuous improvement of the product/service s upplied land that is ideal for a company that must maintain the competitive ness of ifs product/service as high as possible); c) it uses a methodology which highlights the mechanisms of interaction bet ween the actors (a methodology udnerlying decision making theory where ther e are actors who decide, knowing that they have to find a consensus and who exchange resources in a virtuous circle. The principal qualitative element identified by the IRS methodology was the internalisation by the health system of patients' expectations and patient s' satisfaction in the welfare process. The main feature of the accreditation methodology designed by the IRS is th at the assessment focuses neither on structures (which would have been usef ul to measure the degree of reliability) nor on the compilation of behaviou r guidelines, but is centred on the assessment of a function, on the qualif y of the provision of a specialist health service. The decision to assess a specialist function (e.g. nephrology) and not a st ructure (e.g. a nephrology department or a hospital) gives maximum importan ce to the figure of the professional.