Table 2:

The comparison between accreditation models based on 25 defined indicators

Accreditation Model
Indicators	JCAHO	CCHSA	ACHS	ANAES	QHNZ	UK
Effect on quality improvement	****	**	**	*	*	*
Effect on safety improvement	****	**	*	*	*	*
Improving health care management integration	***	**	*	*	*	*
Providing health care organizations database	*	N/M	N/M	N/M	N/M	N/M
Designing an international branch	*	-	-	-	-	-
Providing consultation for other accreditation models	***	*	*	*	*	*
Strengthening in public confidence	****	**	*	*	*	*
Emphasis on efficiency and effectiveness	***	**	*	*	*	*
Providing innovations	****	**	*	*	*	*
Effect on global accreditation standards	****	**	*	*	*	*
Emphasis on patients' rights and providing a ethical atmosphere	***	*	*	*	*	*
Focus on information management	***	*	*	*	*	*
History of organization	****	***	**	*	*	*
Effective relationship with stakeholders	***	**	**	**	**	**
Suitable public awareness (public reporting)	***	**	**	**	**	**
Agreement with AGIL indicator	***	***	*	**	N/M	N/M
Wideness of activity scope	***	**	**	*	**	*
Accredited with ISQua	*	*	*	-	-	*
Considering all 3 types of performance indicators	*	*	-	-	-	*
Having the intent statement	*	*	*	-	-	-
Running voluntary	*	*	*	-	*	*
Running non-governmental	*	*	*	-	-	*
Being suitable for various organizations	*	N/M	N/M	N/M	N/M	N/M
Span of coverage and scientific level	****	**	*	*	*	*
Increasing trend in the international activities	*	N/M	N/M	N/M	N/M	N/M

* : Shows the degree of model achievement in the specified indicator

N/M: Not mentioned in the reviewed studies/- : The model did not achieved the specified indicator at all