Evaluation of continuous quality improvement in accreditation for medical education

Abstract

Background Accreditation systems are based on a number of principles and purposes that vary across jurisdictions. Decision making about accreditation governance suffers from a paucity of evidence. This paper evaluates the pros and cons of continuous quality improvement (CQI) within educational institutions that have traditionally been accredited based on episodic evaluation by external reviewers. Methods A naturalistic utility-focused evaluation was performed. Seven criteria, each relevant to government oversight, were used to evaluate the pros and cons of the use of CQI in three medical school accreditation systems across the continuum of medical education. The authors, all involved in the governance of accreditation, iteratively discussed CQI in their medical education contexts in light of the seven criteria until consensus was reached about general patterns. Results Because institutional CQI makes use of early warning systems, it may enhance the reflective function of accreditation. In the three medical accreditation systems examined, external accreditors lacked the ability to respond quickly to local events or societal developments. There is a potential role for CQI in safeguarding the public interest. Moreover, the central governance structure of accreditation may benefit from decentralized CQI. However, CQI has weaknesses with respect to impartiality, independence, and public accountability, as well as with the ability to balance expectations with capacity. Conclusion CQI, as evaluated with the seven criteria of oversight, has pros and cons. Its use still depends on the balance between the expected positive effects—especially increased reflection and faster response to important issues—versus the potential impediments. A toxic culture that affects impartiality and independence, as well as the need to invest in bureaucratic systems may make in impractical for some institutions to undertake CQI.

A systematic approach to learning design for supervisor training in a specialist medical college

“…Evaluation is a reflective and ongoing process that gathers multiple data sets from trainees to identify ways to enhance digital learning experiences. The research aims to generate new knowledge which is shared with the medical education community to improve digital education practices (Akdemir, Peterson, Campbell, & Scheele, 2020).…”

A correlation of paramedicine’s professional capabilities to competency frameworks that support current and evolving practice scopes: A literature review.

“…The ability to develop as a professional practitioner involves the processes of self-re Literature supports the notion that accreditation of healthcare education programs through a competency framework can in uence curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, and ultimately the competence and practice of graduates (2). The literature and the ndings of this study suggest that the national accreditation scheme needs to be responsive to the changing societal needs of health care, the evolving scope of practice of paramedicine and that an evidence-based competency framework for accreditation bodies safeguards the public interest in meeting these needs (57).…”

Unterricht in der Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde in Zeiten der COVID-19-Pandemie. Wie gut können digitale Formate die Präsenzlehre ersetzen?

“…2 ) der jeweiligen Auseinandersetzung mit der Evaluation durch Studierende geschuldet sind, indem Anregungen der Studierenden umgesetzt wurden. Zumindest gibt es ausreichend wissenschaftliche Daten, die den Nutzen einer qualifizierten und kontinuierlichen studentischen Evaluation für die Qualität der medizinischen Lehre belegen [ 1 , 25 ].…”