Dataset Information

A perspective on Councils on Chiropractic Education accreditation standards and processes from the inside: a narrative description of expert opinion: Part 2: Analyses of particular responses to research findings.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This is the second article reporting on a study that sought the views of people with extensive experience in Councils on Chiropractic Education (CCEs) on research that has raised concerns about variability in accreditation standards and processes for chiropractic programs (CPs) and chiropractic practice in general.

Methods

This qualitative study employed in-depth semi-structured interviews that consisted of open-ended questions asking experts about their thoughts and views on a range of issues surrounding accreditation, graduate competency standards and processes. The interviews were audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim in June and July of 2018. The transcripts were reviewed to develop codes and themes. The study followed the COREQ guidelines for qualitative studies.

Results

The interviews revealed that these CCE experts were able to discern positive and negative elements of the accreditation standards and processes. They were, in general, satisfied with CCEs accreditation standards, graduating competencies, and site inspection processes. Most respondents believed that it was not possible to implement an identical set of international accreditation standards because of cultural and jurisdictional differences. This was thought more likely to be achieved if based on the notion of equivalence. Also, they expressed positive views toward an evidence-based CP curriculum and an outcomes-based assessment of student learning. However, they expressed concerns that an evidence-based approach may result in the overlooking of the clinician's experience. Diverse views were found on the presence of vitalism in CPs. These ranged from thinking vitalism should only be taught in an historical context, it was only a minority who held this view and therefore an insignificant issue. Finally, that CCEs should not regulate these personal beliefs, as this was potentially censorship. The notable absence was that the participants omitted any mention of the implications for patient safety, values and outcomes.

Conclusions

Expert opinions lead us to conclude that CCEs should embrace and pursue the widely accepted mainstream healthcare standards of an evidence-based approach and place the interests of the patient above that of the profession. Recommendations are made to this end with the intent of improving CCE standards and processes of accreditation.

SUBMITTER: Innes SI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6739975 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to report on key informant opinions of Councils on Chiropractic Education (CCE) regarding recent research findings reporting on improving accreditation standards and processes for chiropractic programs (CPs).MethodsThis qualitative study employed in-depth semi-structured interviews with key experienced personnel from the five CCEs in June and July of 2018. The interviews consisted of open-ended questions on a range of issues surrounding accreditation, graduate competency standards and processes. All interviews were audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were analysed to develop codes and themes using thematic analysis techniques assisted by NVivo coding software. The study followed the COREQ guidelines for qualitative studies.ResultsSix themes were isolated from the interview transcripts; they were: professional differences; keep it in the family; to focus on outcomes or be prescriptive?; more resources please; inter-profession integration; and CPs making ends meet. Most respondents saw a need for CCEs standards and processes to improve interdisciplinarity while at the same time preserving the 'uniqueness' of chiropractic. Additionally, informants viewed CCEs as carrying out their functions with limited resources while simultaneously dealing with vocal disparate interest groups. Diverse views were observed on how CCEs should go about their business of assessing chiropractic programs for accreditation and re-accreditation.ConclusionsAn overarching confounder for positive changes in CCE accreditation standards and processes is the inability to clearly define basic and fundamental terms such as 'chiropractic' and its resultant scope of practice. This is said to be because of vocal, diverse and disparate interest groups within the chiropractic profession. Silence or nebulous definitions negotiated in order to allow a diversity of chiropractic practice to co-exist, appears to have complicated and hindered the activities of CCEs. Recommendations are made including an adoption of an evidence-based approach to accreditation standards and processes and the use of expertise from other health professions. Further, the focus of attention should be moved away from professional interests and toward that of protection of the public and the patient.

Project description:BackgroundChiropractors see themselves as well positioned to provide safe, effective and economical care for the on-going financial burden that spinal pain imposes. However, in many places of the world, the chiropractic profession continues to find itself struggling to gain acceptance as a mainstream allied health care provider. There is evidence of the existence of undesirable chiropractic practice patterns and it is in part due to some of the world's accredited chiropractic programs. This indicated a need for scrutiny of international chiropractic educational accreditation standards, which are the responsibility of Councils on Chiropractic Education (CCEs). To this end we reviewed an emerging body of evidence about the chiropractic educational system in order to identify issues and make recommendations that may enhance professional acceptance through improved graduate outcomes and hopefully the quality of patient care. This commentary summarises the findings of that research.Main textWe reviewed recent relevant studies, including our own, into the role and function of CCEs and found that there is sufficient evidence to identify areas of concern that could be addressed, at least in part, by improvements to CCEs' educational standards and processes. Areas included a lack of definitions for key terms such as, 'chiropractic', 'diagnosis', and 'competency', without which there can be no common understanding at a detailed level to inform graduate competencies and standards for a matching scope of practice. Further, there is some evidence to suggest that in some cases this level of detail is avoided in order to enable a "big tent" approach that allows for a diversity of approaches to clinical care to co-exist. This combined with the held view that chiropractic is "unique", highly valued, and best understood by other chiropractors, explains how students and practitioners can cling to 'traditional' thinking. This has implications for public safety and patient quality of care.ConclusionIf chiropractic care is to gain mainstream acceptance worldwide then it needs to adopt, through revitalised CCE accreditation standards and processes, those of other allied healthcare professions and wholeheartedly embrace science, evidence-based practice and patient centred care.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Spine related disorders entail biological (somatic), psychological, and social factors. Though biological factors are often emphasized, psychosocial considerations may not be receiving proper attention in the chiropractic field. Chiropractors treat spine complaints and therefore should be trained in the full spectrum of the biopsychosocial model. This study examines the use of psychosocial related terminology in United States doctor of chiropractic program (DCP) curricula, the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) standards, and the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE) test plans. METHODS:Nineteen academic course catalogs, CCE curricular standards and meta-competencies, and NBCE test plans were studied. Terms containing "psycho", "soci", "mental", "econom", "cultur", "emotion", "determinant", "public", "communit", "neighbor", "behav", or "cognitive" were identified in each document. Frequency of use, context of use, thematic categorization, and percentage of use compared to overall content were calculated and described. RESULTS:'Public' is the most commonly used psychosocial related term in DCP curricula. 'Determinant' was used in 1 DCP curriculum. The number of courses with psychosocial related terminology in course titles and course descriptions ranged from 1 to 5 and 3 to 12, respectively. Most terms are found in clinical skills, special populations, and other miscellaneous courses, with fewer terms found in psychology and public health courses. Terminology use in course titles and descriptions compared to overall content ranges from 3.40 to 14.86%. CCE uses terminology 17 times across 5 (out of 8) total meta-competencies. NBCE includes terminology in test plans I and II, but not III or IV. CONCLUSIONS:Despite evidence suggesting the influential role of psychosocial factors in determinants of health and healthcare delivery, these factors are poorly reflected in United States DCP curricula. This underappreciation is further evidenced by the lack of representation of psychosocial terminology in NBCE parts III and IV test plans. The reasons for this are theoretical; lack of clarity or enforcement of CCE meta-competencies may contribute.

Project description:BackgroundMeta-narrative review is one of an emerging menu of new approaches to qualitative and mixed-method systematic review. A meta-narrative review seeks to illuminate a heterogeneous topic area by highlighting the contrasting and complementary ways in which researchers have studied the same or a similar topic. No previous publication standards exist for the reporting of meta-narrative reviews. This publication standard was developed as part of the RAMESES (Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) project. The project's aim is to produce preliminary publication standards for meta-narrative reviews.MethodsWe (a) collated and summarized existing literature on the principles of good practice in meta-narrative reviews; (b) considered the extent to which these principles had been followed by published reviews, thereby identifying how rigor may be lost and how existing methods could be improved; (c) used a three-round online Delphi method with an interdisciplinary panel of national and international experts in evidence synthesis, meta-narrative reviews, policy and/or publishing to produce and iteratively refine a draft set of methodological steps and publication standards; (d) provided real-time support to ongoing meta-narrative reviews and the open-access RAMESES online discussion list so as to capture problems and questions as they arose; and (e) synthesized expert input, evidence review and real-time problem analysis into a definitive set of standards.ResultsWe identified nine published meta-narrative reviews, provided real-time support to four ongoing reviews and captured questions raised in the RAMESES discussion list. Through analysis and discussion within the project team, we summarized the published literature, and common questions and challenges into briefing materials for the Delphi panel, comprising 33 members. Within three rounds this panel had reached consensus on 20 key publication standards, with an overall response rate of 90%.ConclusionThis project used multiple sources to draw together evidence and expertise in meta-narrative reviews. For each item we have included an explanation for why it is important and guidance on how it might be reported. Meta-narrative review is a relatively new method for evidence synthesis and as experience and methodological developments occur, we anticipate that these standards will evolve to reflect further theoretical and methodological developments. We hope that these standards will act as a resource that will contribute to improving the reporting of meta-narrative reviews.