Accreditation Systems for Postgraduate Medical Education: A Comparison of Five Countries

Autor/inn/en	Fishbain, Dana; Danon, Yehuda L.; Nissanholz-Gannot, Rachel
Titel	Accreditation Systems for Postgraduate Medical Education: A Comparison of Five Countries
Quelle	In: Advances in Health Sciences Education, 24 (2019) 3, S.503-524 (22 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Fishbain, Dana)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1382-4996
DOI	10.1007/s10459-019-09880-x
Schlagwörter	Graduate Medical Education; Accreditation (Institutions); Foreign Countries; Standards; Evaluation Methods; Change; United States; Canada; United Kingdom; Germany; Israel + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Accreditation; Institution; Institutions; Akkreditierung; Staatliche Anerkennung; Institut; Ausland; Standard; Wandel; USA; Kanada; Großbritannien; Deutschland
Abstract	There is a widespread consensus about the need for accreditation systems for evaluating post-graduate medical education programs, but accreditation systems differ substantially across countries. A cross-country comparison of accreditation systems could provide valuable input into policy development processes. We reviewed the accreditation systems of five countries: The United States, Canada, The United Kingdom, Germany and Israel. We used three information sources: a literature review, an online search for published information and applications to some accreditation authorities. We used template analysis for coding and identification of major themes. All five systems accredit according to standards, and basically apply the same accreditation tools: site-visits, annual data collection and self-evaluations. Differences were found in format of standards and specifications, the application of tools and accreditation consequences. Over a 20-year period, the review identified a three-phased process of evolution--from a process-based accreditation system, through an adaptation phase, until the employment of an outcome-based accreditation system. Based on the five-system comparison, we recommend that accrediting authorities: broaden the consequences scale; reconsider the site-visit policy; use multiple data sources; learn from other countries' experiences with the move to an outcome-based system and take the division of roles into account. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01