Literature DB >> 22288991

The importance of medical education accreditation standards.

Marta van Zanten1, John R Boulet, Ian Greaves.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative and absolute importance of individual standards used by accreditation agencies throughout the world.
METHOD: We developed a 150-item survey that consisted of all World Federation for Medical Education standards, supplemented with additional standards used around the world. International accreditation experts rated the standards based on the importance of each standard for ensuring the quality of undergraduate medical education. A 3-point scale was employed: 1 = not important, 2 = important but not essential, 3 = essential.
RESULTS: Thirteen of 22 chosen experts anonymously completed the survey (59%). The mean values, over raters, across individual standards ranged from 2.32 to 2.87, indicating that most of the 150 standards are at least important, and often essential, for ensuring program quality. Fourteen standards received the highest rating of 3 ("Essential") from all experts, and four standards received mean ratings ≤2.00. Variability in the ratings across the experts for individual standards ranged from 0.00 (unanimous agreement) to 0.76 (moderate disagreement).
CONCLUSIONS: While there is some global variation in experts' opinions of accreditation standards, certain standards are considered essential. Our summary data are useful for determining best practices for medical education accreditation systems.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22288991     DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.643261

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Teach        ISSN: 0142-159X            Impact factor:   3.650


  8 in total

1.  Evaluation of ureteroscopy outcome in a teaching hospital.

Authors:  Abdulla Al-Naimi; Abdulqadir Alobaidy; Ahmad Majzoub; Tarek Ahmed Amin Ibrahim
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2016-09

2.  The World Health Organization and the global standardization of medical training, a history.

Authors:  George Weisz; Beata Nannestad
Journal:  Global Health       Date:  2021-08-28       Impact factor: 4.185

3.  Public availability of information from officially accredited medical schools in China.

Authors:  Shaowen Li; Kun Su; Peiwen Li; Yifei Sun; Ying Pan; Weimin Wang; Huixian Cui
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2022-05-31       Impact factor: 3.263

4.  The association between medical education accreditation and the examination performance of internationally educated physicians seeking certification in the United States.

Authors:  Marta van Zanten
Journal:  Perspect Med Educ       Date:  2015-06

5.  Determining 'curriculum viability' through standards and inhibitors of curriculum quality: a scoping review.

Authors:  Rehan Ahmed Khan; Annemarie Spruijt; Usman Mahboob; Jeroen J G van Merrienboer
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2019-09-05       Impact factor: 2.463

6.  Pathology Trainees' Experience and Attitudes on Use of Digital Whole Slide Images.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Hannah Shucard; Annie C Lee; Pin-Chieh Wang; Kathleen F Kerr; Patricia A Carney; Trafton Drew; Tad T Brunyé; Donald L Weaver
Journal:  Acad Pathol       Date:  2020-09-30

7.  Quality Assurance of Undergraduate Medical Education in Israel by Continuous Monitoring and Prioritization of the Accreditation Standards.

Authors:  Jochanan Benbassat; Reuben Baumal; Robert Cohen
Journal:  Rambam Maimonides Med J       Date:  2022-07-31

8.  How changing quality management influenced PGME accreditation: a focus on decentralization and quality improvement.

Authors:  Nesibe Akdemir; Kiki M J M H Lombarts; Emma Paternotte; Bas Schreuder; Fedde Scheele
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2017-06-02       Impact factor: 2.463

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.