The Australian medical education system is at a critical juncture in relation to what and how it delivers for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. Since 2004, three key organisations concerned with medical education have worked to provide a toolkit for implementation of sustainable reform within medical schools. The aim is a medical workforce trained in Indigenous health, and more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander doctors, leading to better health for Australia's Indigenous peoples.
In 2008, China established a medical school accreditation process based on international standards and guidelines. Twenty schools had been accredited by 2013 and it is intended to accredit all 137 schools by 2020. To achieve this ambitious aim, Chinese medical educators have entered into collaboration with their Australian counterparts, engendered by mutual membership of the Association for Medical Education in the Western Pacific Region, a regional division of the World Federation for Medical Education. The collaboration began in 2000 as informal discussions at regional meetings and has since developed three major components: workshops held throughout China for potential assessors and for medical schools undergoing accreditation; visits by Chinese accreditors to Australia to observe Australian Medical Council processes; and participation by Australian assessors in the accreditation of Chinese medical schools. The incremental steps that led to this unique bi-national venture are outlined in the context of other international developments in accreditation of medical education. Then, the preparation, piloting and implementation of accreditation standards and guidelines with Chinese specifications are described. Finally, the outcomes achieved thus far and the challenges remaining are discussed.
Background Quality of training is determined through programs’ compliance with accreditation standards, often set for a number of years. However, perspectives on quality of training within these standards may differ from the clinicians’ perspectives on quality of training. Knowledge on how standards relate to clinicians’ perspectives on quality of training is currently lacking yet is expected to lead to improved accreditation design. Methods This qualitative study design was based on a case-study research approach. We analyzed accreditation standards and conducted 29 interviews with accreditors, clinical supervisors and trainees across Australia and the Netherlands about the quality and accreditation of specialist medical training programs. The perspectives were coded and either if applicable compared to national accreditation standards of both jurisdictions, or thematized to the way stakeholders encounter accreditation standards in practice. Results There were two evident matches and four mismatches between the perspectives of clinicians and the accreditation standards. The matches are: (1) accreditation is necessary (2) trainees are the best source for quality measures. The mismatches are: (3) fundamental training aspects that accreditation standards do not capture: the balance between training and service provision, and trainee empowerment (4) using standards lack dynamism and (5) quality improvement; driven by standards or intrinsic motivation of healthcare professionals. Conclusion In our Australian and Dutch health education cases accreditation is an accepted phenomenon which may be improved by trainee empowerment, a dynamic updating process of standards and by flexibility in its use.
Ethical and legal regulations are important factors in regulating human medical trials. Compared with legal regulation ethical regulation is a soft approach, so legal regulation must be involved in human medical trials. In this article we mainly discuss the current definition of law on the aspects of object, means and purposes of the human body medical test. According to the literature and the current status, with strict pragmatic attitude and compensation laws, human medical test will be controlled in the legal range, maximally be eliminated its negative effects and make medical science and technology and the whole life science benefit the mankind.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.