BACKGROUND: There is worldwide interest in assessing the impact of accreditation systems to quantify their benefits to medical education and, through this, health care at the local and global levels. OBJECTIVE: We analyzed ACGME-I Resident Survey data from Singapore for 2011-2018 to assess the impact of accreditation on residents' evaluations of their programs. METHODS: We focused on 7 questions from the annual Resident Survey, which would be affected by accreditation compliance, along with a single global rating of respondents' overall perception of their program. We assessed for differences among specialty groupings (medical, surgical, and hospital-based) and Singapore's 3 health care systems. Repeated measures analysis of variance procedures was used to assess trends across time for the combined 8 items and each individual item. RESULTS: Analysis of the combined items showed significant improvement over the 7 years Singaporean programs had accreditation. There were no effects for specialty type or sponsoring institution. Analyses of individual questions showed 6 of 8 were significant for improvement. For the individual question related to duty hour compliance, there was a significant interaction between time and specialty, suggesting medical specialties showed greater improvement across time compared to surgical and hospital-based specialties. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of accreditation in Singapore provided educational and clinical learning environment infrastructure not present prior to 2010, with the benefits of this reflected in residents' perceptions of their learning environment. Future assessments of the effects of accreditation might add stakeholder interviews to more fully describe its value and impact.
BACKGROUND: There is worldwide interest in assessing the impact of accreditation systems to quantify their benefits to medical education and, through this, health care at the local and global levels. OBJECTIVE: We analyzed ACGME-I Resident Survey data from Singapore for 2011-2018 to assess the impact of accreditation on residents' evaluations of their programs. METHODS: We focused on 7 questions from the annual Resident Survey, which would be affected by accreditation compliance, along with a single global rating of respondents' overall perception of their program. We assessed for differences among specialty groupings (medical, surgical, and hospital-based) and Singapore's 3 health care systems. Repeated measures analysis of variance procedures was used to assess trends across time for the combined 8 items and each individual item. RESULTS: Analysis of the combined items showed significant improvement over the 7 years Singaporean programs had accreditation. There were no effects for specialty type or sponsoring institution. Analyses of individual questions showed 6 of 8 were significant for improvement. For the individual question related to duty hour compliance, there was a significant interaction between time and specialty, suggesting medical specialties showed greater improvement across time compared to surgical and hospital-based specialties. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of accreditation in Singapore provided educational and clinical learning environment infrastructure not present prior to 2010, with the benefits of this reflected in residents' perceptions of their learning environment. Future assessments of the effects of accreditation might add stakeholder interviews to more fully describe its value and impact.
Authors: Julio Frenk; Lincoln Chen; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Jordan Cohen; Nigel Crisp; Timothy Evans; Harvey Fineberg; Patricia Garcia; Yang Ke; Patrick Kelley; Barry Kistnasamy; Afaf Meleis; David Naylor; Ariel Pablos-Mendez; Srinath Reddy; Susan Scrimshaw; Jaime Sepulveda; David Serwadda; Huda Zurayk Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-11-26 Impact factor: 79.321