A “fit for purpose” framework for medical education accreditation system design
Tóm tắt
Accreditation is a key feature of many medical education systems, helping to ensure that programs teach and assess learners according to applicable standards, provide optimal learning environments, and produce professionals who are competent to practise in challenging and evolving health care systems. Although most medical education accreditation systems apply similar standards domains and process elements, there can be substantial variation among accreditation systems at the level of design and implementation. A discussion group at the 2013 World Summit on Outcomes-Based Accreditation examined best practices in health professional education accreditation systems and identified that the literature examining the effectiveness of different approaches to accreditation is scant. Although some frameworks for accreditation design do exist, they are often specific to one phase of the medical education continuum. This paper attempts to define a framework for the operational design of medical education accreditation that articulates design options as well as their contextual and practical implications. It assumes there is no single set of best practices in accreditation system development but, rather, an underlying set of design decisions. A “fit for purpose” approach aims to ensure that a system, policy, or program is designed and operationalized in a manner best suited to local needs and contexts. This approach is aligned with emerging models for education and international development that espouse decentralization. The framework highlights that, rather than a single best practice, variation among accreditation systems is appropriate provided that is it tailored to the needs of local contexts. Our framework is intended to provide guidance to administrators, policy-makers, and educators regarding different approaches to medical education accreditation and their applicability and appropriateness in local contexts.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Frank J, Taber S, van Zanten M, Scheele F, Blouin D. The Role of Accreditation in 21st Century Health Professions Education: Report of an International Consensus Group. BMC Med Educ. 2020;18(Suppl 1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02121-5.
Øvretveit J, Gustafson D. Evaluation of quality improvement programmes. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11:270–5.
Davis DJ, Ringsted C. Accreditation of undergraduate and graduate medical education: how do the standards contribute to quality? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2006;11(3):305–13.
World Federation for Medical Education. Recognition criteria for agencies accrediting medical schools. London: The Federation; 2018. Available from: http://wfme.org/publications/wfme-recognition-programme-recognition-criteria-2018-revision/?wpdmdl=1956 Accessed May 10, 2019.
World Federation for Medical Education. Postgraduate medical education: WFME global standards for quality improvement (2015 revision). Copenhagen: The Federation; 2015. Available from: http://wfme.org/standards/pgme/97-final-2015-revision-of-postgraduate-medical-education-standards/file. Accessed May 10, 2019.
Akdemir N, Lombarts KMJMH, Paternotte E, Schreuder B, Scheele F. How changing quality management influenced PGME accreditation: a focus on decentralization and quality improvement. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):98.
Hanushek E. What if there are no ‘best practices’? Scott J Pol Econ. 2004;51(2):156–72.
Ramalingam B, Laric M, Primrose J. From best practice to best fit: understanding and navigating wicked problems in international development. London: Overseas Development Institute; 2014. Available from: www.odi.org/publications/8571-best-practice-best-fit-understanding-and-navigating-wicked-problems-international-development Accessed May 10, 2019.
Bandiera G, Frank J, Sheele F, Karpinski J, Philibert I. Effective accreditation in postgraduate medical education: from process to outcomes and back. BMC Med Educ. 2020;18(Suppl 1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02123-3.