Clinicians’ perspectives on quality: do they match accreditation standards?

Abstract

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.

Accreditation as a driver of interprofessional education: the Canadian experience

“…It was also promising that respondents believed that accreditation serves as an enabler of IPE implementation. This position was also seen in a recent Australian-Dutch study by Akdemir et al [30], who examined the impacts of accreditation in practice on postgraduate medical programs from the perspectives of accreditors, clinicians, and trainees. Akdemir et al stated that,…”

Exploring Motivations and Barriers To Accreditation Adoption Among Physician Assistant and Nurse Practitioner Emergency Medicine and Orthopedic Surgery Residency and Fellowship Programs

“…Anecdotally, many postgraduate programs struggle to generate enough clinical revenue to offset training at much less accreditation costs. Achieving accreditation can also increase demands on staff time and other resources, though the long-term benefits of accreditation may far outweigh the initial investment [ 17 ].…”

Implementing Accreditation Standards in Academic Medical Programs is Necessary to Trust Higher Education: The Experience of Two Academic Programs at Qassim University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

“…The term "accreditation" is defined by the European Consortium of Accreditation as a formal and independent judgment stating that an HE institution and/or programs offered meet specific standards. Accreditation is the process by which educational institutions and/or programs are evaluated on a periodic basis in accordance with a predetermined set of criteria, standards, and procedures based on a quality management approach and held accountable by formally designated external regulatory bodies at the government level [22,29,[30][31][32]. Accreditation is a voluntary peer-review process that institutions and/or programs of HE agree to and apply for to ensure and improve the quality of the education they offer [33,34].…”