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:BackgroundSpine 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.MethodsNineteen 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.ConclusionsDespite 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:BackgroundHealthcare accreditation is a widely implemented tool used to enhance the quality of care and underpin quality control. However, research is sparse on the accreditation process in general practice. The aim of this study was to explore how team-based implementation activities preceding accreditation were associated with self-perceived improvements in emergency preparedness (preparedness for urgent disease and cardiac arrest) and handling of prescription renewals in Danish general practice.MethodsGPs (general practitioners) completed a questionnaire exploring practice-team activities conducted to implement two specific accreditation standards and the related improvements as perceived by the GPs. The following implementation activities were selected, inspired by Normalization Process Theory: Common understanding (obtaining a common understanding of the purpose of implementing changes according to the accreditation standard), key person (assigning a key person responsible for working with the standard), and easy integration (finding it easy to integrate changes into existing working procedures). Data were analysed with logistic regression, and adjusted analyses included practice type, number of GP partners, number of staff, training site for junior GPs and administrative region.ResultsThe total response rate was 74% (n = 920). Around 80% of the clinics reported having conducted team-based implementation activities. Almost half of the clinics (48%) reported perceived improvements in the emergency preparedness, and 30% reported perceived improvements in the handling of prescription renewals. Obtaining a common understanding was found to have a strong, significant association with perceived improvements in the emergency preparedness (OR = 5.07 (3.06-8.40)) and handling of prescription renewals (OR = 3.66 (2.07-6.46)). Easy integration of changes was also significantly associated with improvements in both emergency preparedness (OR = 1.88 (1.24-2.85)) and handling of prescription renewals (OR = 2.34 (1.44-3.79)), whereas assigning a key person was only significantly associated with improved emergency preparedness (OR = 1.95 (1.19-3.19)).ConclusionClinical quality initiatives that involve collaboration within a practice team are more likely to cause improvements if specific team-based implementation activities are conducted. It is particularly important to facilitate a common understanding of the purpose of the initiative. Therefore, external support for quality initiatives aiming at the practice level in general practice should facilitate such team-based activities.