B Tousignant1, R Du Toit. 1. Fred Hollows Foundation, Newmarket, Auckland, New Zealand. tousib@post.harvard.edu
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In 2006, a Postgraduate Diploma in Eye Care (PGDEC) for mid-level health personnel was initiated in Papua New Guinea, in partnership with The Fred Hollows Foundation New Zealand, the local government and Divine Word University. In the absence of national accreditation and with limited resources, an interim evaluation was needed. METHODS: We adapted the World Federation for Medical Education (WFME) standards to use in a self-audit to evaluate nine areas and 38 subareas of programme structure, processes and implementation. We developed a rating system: each area and subarea was scored for partial or complete attainment of basic or quality development levels. Ratings were referenced with supporting documents. Data were gathered internally, through document census and meetings between stakeholders. FINDINGS: A qualitative and quantitative portrait emerged: all nine programme areas completely attained at least basic level and two completely attained the quality development level. Twenty-six (68%) subareas completely attained the quality development level. Key successes included the administration of the PGDEC, synergies between the partnership's stakeholders and its relationship with the public health system. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This self-audit adapted from WFME standards provided a simple, yet systematic and largely objective evaluation. It proved beneficial to further develop the programme, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement.
INTRODUCTION: In 2006, a Postgraduate Diploma in Eye Care (PGDEC) for mid-level health personnel was initiated in Papua New Guinea, in partnership with The Fred Hollows Foundation New Zealand, the local government and Divine Word University. In the absence of national accreditation and with limited resources, an interim evaluation was needed. METHODS: We adapted the World Federation for Medical Education (WFME) standards to use in a self-audit to evaluate nine areas and 38 subareas of programme structure, processes and implementation. We developed a rating system: each area and subarea was scored for partial or complete attainment of basic or quality development levels. Ratings were referenced with supporting documents. Data were gathered internally, through document census and meetings between stakeholders. FINDINGS: A qualitative and quantitative portrait emerged: all nine programme areas completely attained at least basic level and two completely attained the quality development level. Twenty-six (68%) subareas completely attained the quality development level. Key successes included the administration of the PGDEC, synergies between the partnership's stakeholders and its relationship with the public health system. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This self-audit adapted from WFME standards provided a simple, yet systematic and largely objective evaluation. It proved beneficial to further develop the programme, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement.