Two sides of the same coin: Quality improvement and program evaluation in health professions education

Abstract

Health professions education is in constant pursuit of new ways of teaching and assessment in order to improve the training of healthcare professionals. Educators are often challenged with designing, implementing, and evaluating programs in the context of their professional practice, particularly those in response to dynamic and emerging social needs. This article explores the synergies and intersections of two approaches—quality improvement and program evaluation—and the potential utility of their combinations within our field to design, evaluate, and most importantly, improve educational programming. We argue that the inclusion of established quality improvement frameworks within program evaluation provides a proven mechanism for driving change, can optimize programming within the multi‐contextual education systems, and, ultimately, that these two approaches are complementary to one another. These combinations hold great promise for optimizing programming in alignment with social missions, where it has been difficult for institutions worldwide to generate and capture evidence of social accountability.

To prove or improve? Examining how paradoxical tensions shape evaluation practices in accreditation contexts

“…This routinisation of evaluation is driven in part by the rationale that it is a valuable driver of quality improvement 1,2 orfurther still-a mechanism for maintaining credibility, supporting public accountability and driving societal improvement. 1,3,4 These are noble aspirations; nevertheless, there have been numerous critiques as to whether prevailing evaluation practices in HPE are sufficient for realising espoused goals. [3][4][5][6][7] For example, scholars have expressed concerns about issues such as the undue dominance of select outcomesfocused models in the field [5][6][7] and frequent neglect of evaluative scrutiny of implementation, [8][9][10] as well as about a persistently narrow scope in the focus of evaluation questions.…”

“…1,3,4 These are noble aspirations; nevertheless, there have been numerous critiques as to whether prevailing evaluation practices in HPE are sufficient for realising espoused goals. [3][4][5][6][7] For example, scholars have expressed concerns about issues such as the undue dominance of select outcomesfocused models in the field [5][6][7] and frequent neglect of evaluative scrutiny of implementation, [8][9][10] as well as about a persistently narrow scope in the focus of evaluation questions. 4,11,12 Almost invariably, scholarly critiques of evaluation in HPE are accompanied by calls to action via adoption of new or broader methodologies and frameworks for evaluation.…”

“…Programme evaluation is becoming ubiquitous in health professions education (HPE), for both small‐scale programmes and larger institutional initiatives. This routinisation of evaluation is driven in part by the rationale that it is a valuable driver of quality improvement 1,2 or—further still—a mechanism for maintaining credibility, supporting public accountability and driving societal improvement 1,3,4 . These are noble aspirations; nevertheless, there have been numerous critiques as to whether prevailing evaluation practices in HPE are sufficient for realising espoused goals 3–7 .…”