Accreditation in a sub Saharan medical school: a case study at Makerere University

Developing and validating a national set of standards for undergraduate medical education using the WFME framework: the experience of an accreditation system in Iran

BACKGROUND

Defining standards is the first step toward quality assurance and improvement of educational programs. This study aimed at developing and validating a set of national standards for the Undergraduate Medical Education (UME) program through an accreditation system in Iran using the World Federation for Medical Education (WFME) framework.

METHODS

The first draft of standards was prepared through consultative workshops with the participation of different UME program stakeholders. Subsequently, standards were sent to medical schools and UME directors were asked to complete a web-based survey. The content validity index at the item level (I-CVI) was computed using criteria including clarity, relevance, optimization and evaluability for each standard. Afterward, a full-day consultative workshop was held and a wide range of UME stakeholders across the country (n = 150) discussed the survey results and made corrections to standards.

RESULTS

Analysis of survey results showed that relevance criteria had the best CVI as only 15 (13%) standards demonstrated CVI < 0.78. More than two-thirds (71%) and a half (55%) of standards showed CVI < 0.78 for optimization and evaluability criteria. The final set of UME national standards was structured in 9 areas, 24 sub-areas, 82 basic and 40 quality development standards, and 84 annotations.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed and validated national standards as a framework to ensure the quality of UME training with input from UME stakeholders. We used WFME standards as a benchmark while addressing local requirements. The standards and participatory approach to developing standards may guide relevant institutions.

Factors affecting social accountability of medical schools in the Korean context: exploratory factor and multiple regression analyses

The concept of social accountability of medical schools is becoming increasingly important worldwide, and numerous frameworks and evaluation tools have been developed. This study examined how global concepts work in a specific context by identifying the factors affecting medical schools' social accountability performance in the Korean context. A survey was conducted with 40 current deans of medical schools and 15 medical education experts in Korea to assess their opinions on the implementation of social accountability of medical schools. A questionnaire survey comprising five key factors, including 39 items, was developed based on a literature review. Exploratory factors were analyzed to derive factors affecting social accountability Multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine the importance of each factor in the implementation of social accountability of medical schools. The exploratory factor analysis revealed that eight factors in three areas influenced the implementation of social accountability by medical schools. The hardware (H) area included the declaration of social accountability and physicians, organizations and systems for implementing social accountability, and physical environment and finance. The software (S) area included curriculum design-related social accountability and monitoring and evaluation system. The partner (P) area included the proximity between partners, building partnerships among stakeholders, and interactions between partners. Multiple regression analysis revealed that 'interactions between partners' had the greatest impact on the implementation of social accountability of medical schools. It is a social accountability implementation model that reflects global principles within the Korean context. The HSP model is significant in that individual medical schools can be used in establishing mandated mechanisms for accreditation. Future studies could adapt this model to study standards and indicators in other contexts.

Development of accreditation standards for midwifery clinical education in Iran

BACKGROUND

Accreditation is one of the most important methods of quality assurance and improvement in medical education. In Iran, there are no specific midwifery education accreditation standards. This study was designed to develop accreditation standards for midwifery clinical education in Iran.

METHODS

This study was performed in Iran in 2021. It consisted of two phases. In the first phase, accreditation standards for midwifery education in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and the International Confederation of Midwives were thoroughly examined through a narrative review. The domains obtained from this phase were used as a framework for coding in the second phase. In the second phase, a qualitative study was conducted with a directed content analysis approach to determine standards and criteria for clinical midwifery education accreditation in Iran. Participants were policymakers and senior managers of midwifery education, faculty members of midwifery departments with clinical teaching experience, and final year undergraduate midwifery students. The participants were selected by purposive sampling method, and data collection continued until data saturation.

RESULTS

The standards and accreditation criteria of midwifery education from the review study were formed 6 domains: Mission and goals; Curricula; Clinical instructors; Students, Clinical setting; and Assessment. In the second phase, data analysis led to the extraction of 131 codes, which were divided into 35 sub-subcategories, 15 sub-categories, and 6 main categories.

CONCLUSION

Implementing the specific and localized standards of clinical midwifery education in Iran can lead to improved quality of clinical education programs.

Describing the Evidence Base for Accreditation in Undergraduate Medical Education Internationally: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

To summarize the state of evidence related to undergraduate medical education (UME) accreditation internationally, describe from whom and where the evidence has come, and identify opportunities for further investigation.

METHOD

The authors searched Embase, ERIC, PubMed, and Scopus from inception through January 31, 2018, without language restrictions, to identify peer-reviewed articles on UME accreditation. Articles were classified as scholarship if all Glassick's criteria were met and as nonscholarship if not all were met. Author, accrediting agency, and study characteristics were analyzed.

RESULTS

Database searching identified 1,379 nonduplicate citations, resulting in 203 unique, accessible articles for full-text review. Of these and with articles from hand searching added, 36 articles were classified as scholarship (30 as research) and 85 as nonscholarship. Of the 36 scholarship and 85 nonscholarship articles, respectively, 21 (58%) and 44 (52%) had an author from the United States or Canada, 8 (22%) and 11 (13%) had an author from a low- or middle-income country, and 16 (44%) and 43 (51%) had an author affiliated with a regulatory authority. Agencies from high-income countries were featured most often (scholarship: 28/60 [47%]; nonscholarship: 70/101 [69%]). Six (17%) scholarship articles reported receiving funding. All 30 research studies were cross-sectional or retrospective, 12 (40%) reported only analysis of accreditation documents, and 5 (17%) attempted to link accreditation with educational outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence exists to support current UME accreditation practices or guide accreditation system creation or enhancement. More research is required to optimize UME accreditation systems' value for students, programs, and society.