Document resource
Background The Pulmonary Rehabilitation Services Accreditation Scheme (PRSAS), hosted by the Royal College of Physicians (RCP), was launched in April 2018 to improve the quality of UK pulmonary rehabilitation services. Participating services work to an accreditation pathway which involves self-assessment and quality improvement against the standards. Accredited services submit evidence annually to demonstrate maintenance to the standards and have a 5-yearly on-site assessment. The aim of this analysis was to explore the experiences of accredited services.Methods A mixed method survey was sent to current accredited services (2024) to record experiences of the service accreditation journey and to explore impact, barriers and facilitators to completing the accreditation process. A descriptive analysis was undertaken with content analysis for qualitative content.Results At the time of the survey 160 services were participating in PRSAS, of which 21 were accredited, 18(86%) returned the service annual survey. Most of the services (77.8% 14/18) reported measurable changes since starting and achieving accreditation, these included improvements to the exercise delivery programme (21.4% 3/14), reduced waiting times (28.6% 4/14) and improved patient outcome measures tools/data collection (42.8% 6/14). Similar numbers (77.8% 14/18) reported positive opportunities post-accreditation, including better clinical links, awareness of PR services within their organisation and/or externally (64.3% 9/14) and increased staffing (retention/recruitment/promotion, 42.8% 6/14). 88.9% (16/18) had implemented recommendations (i.e. embedding operational plans and processes [50.0% 8/16], exercise programme changes [37.5% 6/16]).Feedback from participants highlighted a lack of standardised templates and the need for more information resources to support the process. Variation in assessor requests and as well as additional hurdles with trust requirements for data presentation were also highlighted. Several participants highlighted that the accreditation process can be ’overwhelming’ and ‘tricky’ to coordinate alongside running clinical services. However, after completion of the process many would consider being an accreditation champion (66.7% 12/18), the numbers participating in and completing the process successfully are increasing.Conclusions These findings suggest that accreditation provides measurable impact on service Key Performance Indicators and patient outcomes.