RE-AIM evaluation of accreditation process in Turkey.
Accreditation
Medical education
RE-AIM evaluation
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Oct 2024
16 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
27
06
2024
accepted:
04
10
2024
medline:
17
10
2024
pubmed:
17
10
2024
entrez:
16
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Effects of accreditation on various areas of medical education were studied in literature. However, data about comprehensive evaluation of accreditation activities is limited. This paper aims to present how an accreditation agency self-evaluates its own accreditation activities. Association for Evaluation and Accreditation of Medical Education Programs (TEPDAD) is an accreditation agency in Turkey. RE-AIM evaluation framework was used to evaluate TEPDAD's activities. The accreditation processes were evaluated through indicators set for each of five RE-AIM evaluation framework dimensions (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance). Data for evaluation for each dimension were gathered from the documents available in TEPDAD website and archives. Qualitative and quantitative analysis methods were used when necessary to investigate the degree of achievement for each indicator. Seventy-five (83%) of 90 medical schools meeting the application criteria are registered in the accreditation system. Effectiveness analyses revealed that medical education programs improved in eight areas (education program, student representation, documentation, assessment, infrastructure/facilities, faculty development, educational management). Accreditation processes were well adopted by medical schools and TEPDAD volunteers. The number of medical education programs registered in the accreditation system has gradually increased over years. For the accreditation implementation process, medical schools and TEPDAD evaluators provided positive feedback. Medical schools and TEPDAD invested efforts to maintain the accreditation process over time and changing conditions. All of the previously accredited schools have applied for reaccreditation for the second or third cycles to maintain their status. TEPDAD has maintained its recognition status by national and international authorities by several times. The accreditation standards have been continuously reviewed and renewed when necessary. The organizational structure of TEPDAD has been changed in time considering feedback and past experiences. TEPDAD also arranges meetings to promote and maintain its activities. TEPDAD has achieved significant success in terms of reaching majority of the Turkish medical schools, leading to prominent developments in medical education programs without any significant problems related to process, procedures and maintenance. There are still areas of improvement for TEPDAD such as reaching all targeted schools and guiding medical schools to improve quality in diverse elements of medical education programs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Effects of accreditation on various areas of medical education were studied in literature. However, data about comprehensive evaluation of accreditation activities is limited. This paper aims to present how an accreditation agency self-evaluates its own accreditation activities.
METHODS
METHODS
Association for Evaluation and Accreditation of Medical Education Programs (TEPDAD) is an accreditation agency in Turkey. RE-AIM evaluation framework was used to evaluate TEPDAD's activities. The accreditation processes were evaluated through indicators set for each of five RE-AIM evaluation framework dimensions (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance). Data for evaluation for each dimension were gathered from the documents available in TEPDAD website and archives. Qualitative and quantitative analysis methods were used when necessary to investigate the degree of achievement for each indicator.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Seventy-five (83%) of 90 medical schools meeting the application criteria are registered in the accreditation system. Effectiveness analyses revealed that medical education programs improved in eight areas (education program, student representation, documentation, assessment, infrastructure/facilities, faculty development, educational management). Accreditation processes were well adopted by medical schools and TEPDAD volunteers. The number of medical education programs registered in the accreditation system has gradually increased over years. For the accreditation implementation process, medical schools and TEPDAD evaluators provided positive feedback. Medical schools and TEPDAD invested efforts to maintain the accreditation process over time and changing conditions. All of the previously accredited schools have applied for reaccreditation for the second or third cycles to maintain their status. TEPDAD has maintained its recognition status by national and international authorities by several times. The accreditation standards have been continuously reviewed and renewed when necessary. The organizational structure of TEPDAD has been changed in time considering feedback and past experiences. TEPDAD also arranges meetings to promote and maintain its activities.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
TEPDAD has achieved significant success in terms of reaching majority of the Turkish medical schools, leading to prominent developments in medical education programs without any significant problems related to process, procedures and maintenance. There are still areas of improvement for TEPDAD such as reaching all targeted schools and guiding medical schools to improve quality in diverse elements of medical education programs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39415178
doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-06143-1
pii: 10.1186/s12909-024-06143-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1152Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Karle H. Global standards and accreditation in medical education: a view from the WFME. Acad Med. 2006;81:S43–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ACM.0000243383.71047.c4 .
doi: 10.1097/01.ACM.0000243383.71047.c4
WFME Recognition Programme. https://wfme.org/recognition/ . Accessed 14 Jan 2024.
ECFMG Recognized Accreditation Policy. https://www.ecfmg.org/accreditation/#implementation . Accessed 20 Dec 2023.
Shiffer CD, Boulet JR, Cover LL, Pinsky WW. Advancing the quality of medical education worldwide: ECFMG’s 2023 medical school accreditation requirement. J Med Regul. 2019;105(4):8–16. https://doi.org/10.30770/2572-1852-105.4.8 .
doi: 10.30770/2572-1852-105.4.8
Global Health workforce 2030. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241511131 . Accessed 24 Dec 2023.
Blouin D, Tekian A, Kamin C, Harris IB. The impact of accreditation on medical schools’ processes. Med Educ. 2018;52(2):182–91.
doi: 10.1111/medu.13461
Leinster S. Role of accrediting bodies in providing education leadership in medical education. J Health Spec. 2014;2(4):132–5.
doi: 10.4103/1658-600X.142779
Holt KD, Miller RS, Byrne LM, Day SH. The positive effects of accreditation on graduate medical education programs in Singapore. J Grad Med Educ. 2019;11(4 Suppl):213–7. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-19-00429 . PMID: 31428292; PMCID: PMC6697308.
doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-19-00429
van Zanten M, Boulet JR, Shiffer CD. Making the grade: licensing examination performance by medical school accreditation status. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22:36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03101-7 .
doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03101-7
Simon FA, Aschenbrener CA. Undergraduate medical education accreditation as a driver of lifelong learning. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2005;25(3):157–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.23 . PMID: 16173065.
doi: 10.1002/chp.23
Kassebaum DG, Cutler ER, Eaglen RH. The influence of accreditation on educational change in U.S. medical schools. Acad Med. 1997;72(12):1127–33.
doi: 10.1097/00001888-199712000-00029
Kulasegaram KM, Tonin P, Houston P, Whitehead C. Accreditation drives medical education. Does evidence drive accreditation? Med Educ. 2018;52:772–3.
doi: 10.1111/medu.13584
van Zanten M, Norcini JJ, Boulet JR, Simon F. Overview of accreditation of undergraduate medical education programmes worldwide. Med Educ. 2008;42(9):930–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03092.x . PMID: 18694406.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03092.x
Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89:1322–7. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322 .
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322
Shoup JA, Gaglio B, Varda D, Glasgow RE. Network analysis of RE-AIM framework: chronology of the field and the connectivity of its contributors. Transl Behav Med. 2015;5(2):216–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-014-0300-1 .
doi: 10.1007/s13142-014-0300-1
Kwan BM, McGinnes HL, Ory MG, Estabrooks PA, Waxmonsky JA, Glasgow RE. RE-AIM in the real world: use of the RE-AIM framework for program planning and evaluation in clinical and community settings. Front Public Health. 2019;7:345. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00345 .
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00345
List of Turkish Medical Schools https://dokuman.osym.gov.tr/pdfdokuman/2023/YKS/TERCIH/kkilavuz27072023di.pdf . Accessed 20 Dec 2023.
Odabaşı O. Medical schools in Turkey 2023. Sürekli Tıp Eğitimi Dergisi. 2023;32(1):37–61. https://doi.org/10.17942/sted.1259646 .
doi: 10.17942/sted.1259646
TEPDAD Aims and activities: https://tepdad.org.tr/en/aims-activities/ . Accessed 20 May 2024.
Crossborder Accreditation by TEPDAD. https://www.tepdad.org.tr/en/accreditation-services-for-outside-of-turkey . Accessed 20 May 2024.
Accreditation Implementation Documents. https://www.tepdad.org.tr/en/documents . Accessed 20 May 2024.
Accredited Programs in Turkey. https://www.tepdad.org.tr/en/accredited-programs-in-turkey . Accessed 20 May 2024.
Application for Accreditation. https://tepdad.org.tr/basvuru/ . Accessed 20 May 2024.
SER Evaluation Guide. https://tepdad.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/SER-Evaluation-Guide_2023.pdf . Accessed 20 May 2024.
Post-visit Feedback Forms. https://tepdad.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Site-Visit-Evaluation-Guide-2022.pdf . p:65–66. Accessed 20 May 2024.
Yilmaz Y, Sarikaya O, Senol Y, Baykan Z, Karaca O, Demiral Yilmaz N, Altintas L, Onan A, Sayek İ. RE-AIMing COVID-19 online learning for medical students: a massive open online course evaluation. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):303. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02751-3 .
doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02751-3
Education during the Pandemic. https://tepdad.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/COVID-19-Salgini-Surecinde-Tip-Fakultelerinde-Egitim.pdf . Accessed 26 May 2024.
Working Regulations. https://tepdad.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/TEPDAD-Working-Regulations.pdf . Accessed 26 May 2024.
Social Accountability Document. https://tepdad.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/TEPDAD_Sosyal_Guvenilirlik_2019.pdf . Accessed 26 May 2024.
Sayek I, Turan S, Batı AH, Demirören M, Baykan Z. Social accountability: a national framework for Turkish medical schools. Med Teach. 2021;43(2):223–31. Epub 2020 Nov 10.
doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2020.1841889
Chandran L, Fleit HB, Shroyer AL. Academic medicine change management: the power of the liaison committee on medical education accreditation process. Acad Med. 2013;88(9):1225–31.
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31829e7a25