Dataset Information

Development of accreditation standards for interprofessional education: a Canadian Case Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Academic institutions worldwide are embedding interprofessional education (IPE) into their health/social services education programs in response to global evidence that this leads to interprofessional collaborative practice (IPC). The World Health Organization (WHO) is holding its 193 member countries accountable for Indicator 3-06 ('IPE Accreditation') through its National Health Workforce Accounts. Despite the major influence of accreditation on the quality of health and social services education programs, little has been written about accreditation of IPE.

Case study

Canada has been a global leader in IPE Accreditation. The Accreditation of Interprofessional Health Education (AIPHE) projects (2007-2011) involved a collaborative of eight Canadian organizations that accredit pre-licensure education for six health/social services professions. The AIPHE vision was for learners to develop the necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes to provide IPC through IPE. The aim of this paper is to share the Canadian Case Study including policy context, supporting theories, preconditions, logic model and evaluation findings to achieve the primary project deliverable, increased awareness of the need to embed IPE language into the accreditation standards for health and social services academic programs. Future research implications are also discussed.

Conclusions

As a result of AIPHE, Canada is the only country in the world in which, for over a decade, a collective of participating health/social services accrediting organizations have been looking for evidence of IPE in the programs they accredit. This puts Canada in the unique position to now examine the downstream impacts of IPE accreditation.

SUBMITTER: Grymonpre RE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7818738 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development of accreditation standards for interprofessional education: a Canadian Case Study.

Grymonpre Ruby E RE Bainbridge Lesley L Nasmith Louise L Baker Cynthia C

Human resources for health 20210120 1

<h4>Background</h4>Academic institutions worldwide are embedding interprofessional education (IPE) into their health/social services education programs in response to global evidence that this leads to interprofessional collaborative practice (IPC). The World Health Organization (WHO) is holding its 193 member countries accountable for Indicator 3-06 ('IPE Accreditation') through its National Health Workforce Accounts. Despite the major influence of accreditation on the quality of health and soc ...[more]

PMID: 33472633

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing evidence suggests that sustainable delivery of interprofessional education (IPE) has the potential to lead to interprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP), which in turn has the potential to lead to enhanced healthcare systems and improved patient-centered care health outcomes. To enhance IPE in Canada, the Accreditation of Interprofessional Health Education (AIPHE) project initiated collaborative efforts among accrediting organizations of six health professions to embed IPE language into their respective accreditation standards. To further understand the impact of the AIPHE project, this study evaluated the accountability of the IPE language currently embedded in Canadian health professions' accreditation standards documents and examined whether such language spanned the five accreditation standards domains identified in the AIPHE project.MethodsWe conducted a comparative content analysis to identify and examine IPE language within the "accountable" statements in the current accreditation standards for 11 Canadian health professions that met our eligibility criteria.Results and discussionA total of 77 IPE-relevant accountable statements were identified across 13 accreditation standards documents for the 11 health professions. The chiropractic, pharmacy, and physiotherapy documents represented nearly 50% (38/77) of all accountable statements. The accountable statements for pharmacy, dentistry, dietetics, and nursing (registered) spanned across three-to-four accreditation standards domains. The remaining nine professions' statements referred mostly to "Students" and "Educational program." Furthermore, the majority of accreditation standards documents failed to provide a definition of IPE, and those that did, were inconsistent across health professions.ConclusionsIt was encouraging to see frequent reference to IPE within the accreditation standards of the health professions involved in this study. The qualitative findings, however, suggest that the emphasis of these accountable statements is mainly on the students and educational program, potentially compromising the sustainability and development, implementation, and evaluation of this frequently misunderstood pedagogical approach. The findings and exemplary IPE-relevant accountable statements identified in this paper should be of interest to all relevant stakeholders including those countries, where IPE accreditation is still emerging, as a means to accelerate and strengthen achieving desired educational and health outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the evidence upon which standards for hospital accreditation by The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (the Joint Commission) are based.DesignCross sectional study.SettingUnited States.ParticipantsFour Joint Commission R3 (requirement, rationale, and reference) reports released by July 2018 and intended to become effective between 1 July 2018 and 1 July 2019.InterventionsFrom each R3 report the associated standard and its specific elements of performance (or actionable standards) were extracted. If an actionable standard enumerated multiple requirements, these were separated into distinct components. Two investigators reviewed full text references, and each actionable standard was classified as either completely supported, partly supported, or not supported; Oxford evidence quality ratings were assigned; and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the strength of recommendations.Main outcome measureStrengths of recommendation for actionable standards.Results20 actionable standards with 76 distinct components were accompanied by 48 references. Of the 20 actionable standards, six (30%) were completely supported by cited references, six were partly supported (30%), and eight (40%) were not supported. Of the six directly supported actionable standards, one (17%) cited at least one reference of level 1 or 2 evidence, none cited at least one reference of level 3 evidence, and five (83%) cited references of level 4 or 5 evidence. Of the completely supported actionable standards, strength of recommendation in five was deemed GRADE D and in one was GRADE B.ConclusionsIn general, recent actionable standards issued by The Joint Commission are seldom supported by high quality data referenced within the issuing documents. The Joint Commission might consider being more transparent about the quality of evidence and underlying rationale supporting each of its recommendations, including clarifying when and why in certain instances it determines that lower level evidence is sufficient.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare accreditation standards are advocated as an important means of improving clinical practice and organisational performance. Standard development agencies have documented methodologies to promote open, transparent, inclusive development processes where standards are developed by members. They assert that their methodologies are effective and efficient at producing standards appropriate for the health industry. However, the evidence to support these claims requires scrutiny. The study's purpose was to examine the empirical research that grounds the development methods and application of healthcare accreditation standards.MethodsA multi-method strategy was employed over the period March 2010 to August 2011. Five academic health research databases (Medline, Psych INFO, Embase, Social work abstracts, and CINAHL) were interrogated, the websites of 36 agencies associated with the study topic were investigated, and a snowball search was undertaken. Search criteria included accreditation research studies, in English, addressing standards and their impact. Searching in stage 1 initially selected 9386 abstracts. In stage 2, this selection was refined against the inclusion criteria; empirical studies (n = 2111) were identified and refined to a selection of 140 papers with the exclusion of clinical or biomedical and commentary pieces. These were independently reviewed by two researchers and reduced to 13 articles that met the study criteria.ResultsThe 13 articles were analysed according to four categories: overall findings; standards development; implementation issues; and impact of standards. Studies have only occurred in the acute care setting, predominately in 2003 (n = 5) and 2009 (n = 4), and in the United States (n = 8). A multidisciplinary focus (n = 9) and mixed method approach (n = 11) are common characteristics. Three interventional studies were identified, with the remaining 10 studies having research designs to investigate clinical or organisational impacts. No study directly examined standards development or other issues associated with their progression. Only one study noted implementation issues, identifying several enablers and barriers. Standards were reported to improve organisational efficiency and staff circumstances. However, the impact on clinical quality was mixed, with both improvements and a lack of measurable effects recorded.ConclusionStandards are ubiquitous within healthcare and are generally considered to be an important means by which to improve clinical practice and organisational performance. However, there is a lack of robust empirical evidence examining the development, writing, implementation and impacts of healthcare accreditation standards.

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.

Project description:To reduce the incidence of hypoxic brain injuries among newborns a national cardiotocography (CTG) education program was implemented in Denmark. A multiple-choice question test was integrated as part of the program. The aim of this article was to describe and discuss the test development process and to introduce a feasible method for written test development in general.The test development was based on the unitary approach to validity. The process involved national consensus on learning objectives, standardized item writing, pilot testing, sensitivity analyses, standard setting and evaluation of psychometric properties using Item Response Theory models. Test responses and feedback from midwives, specialists and residents in obstetrics and gynecology, and medical and midwifery students were used in the process (proofreaders n?=?6, pilot test participants n?=?118, CTG course participants n?=?1679).The final test included 30 items and the passing score was established at 25 correct answers. All items fitted a loglinear Rasch model and the test was able to discriminate levels of competence. Seven items revealed differential item functioning in relation to profession and geographical regions, which means the test is not suitable for measuring differences between midwives and physicians or differences across regions. In the setting of pilot testing Cronbach's alpha equaled 0.79, whereas Cronbach's alpha equaled 0.63 in the setting of the CTG education program. This indicates a need for more items and items with a higher degree of difficulty in the test, and illuminates the importance of context when discussing validity.Test development is a complex and time-consuming process. The unitary approach to validity was a useful and applicable tool for development of a CTG written assessment. The process and findings supported our proposed interpretation of the assessment as measuring CTG knowledge and interpretive skills. However, for the test to function as a high-stake assessment a higher reliability is required.

Dataset Information

Development of accreditation standards for interprofessional education: a Canadian Case Study.

Background

Case study

Conclusions

Publications

Development of accreditation standards for interprofessional education: a Canadian Case Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets