Human Resources for Health (Aug 2023)

Consistency and quality in written accreditation protocols for pediatrician training programs: a mixed-methods analysis of a global sample, and directions for improvement

  • Alexandra L. Coria,
  • Areej Hassan,
  • Jui-Yen Huang,
  • Katia C. Genadry,
  • Rashmi K. Kumar,
  • Ayten Sergios,
  • Roseda E. Marshall,
  • Christiana M. Russ

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-023-00852-2
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 21, no. 1
pp. 1 – 10

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background The World Federation for Medical Education (WFME) defines accreditation as 'certification of the suitability of medical education programs, and of…competence…in the delivery of medical education.' Accreditation bodies function at national, regional and global levels. In 2015, WFME published quality standards for accreditation of postgraduate medical education (PGME). We compared accreditation of pediatric PGME programs to these standards to understand variability in accreditation and areas for improvement. Methods We examined 19 accreditation protocols representing all country income levels and world regions. For each, two raters assessed 36 WFME-defined accreditation sub-areas as present, partially present, or absent. When rating “partially present” or “absent”, raters noted the rationale for the rating. Using an inductive approach, authors qualitatively analyzed notes, generating themes in reasons for divergence from the benchmark. Results A median of 56% (IQR 43–77%) of WFME sub-areas were present in individual protocols; 22% (IQR 15–39%) were partially present; and 8.3% (IQR 5.5–21%) were absent. Inter-rater agreement was 74% (SD 11%). Sub-areas least addressed included number of trainees, educational expertise, and performance of qualified doctors. Qualitative themes of divergence included (1) variation in protocols related to heterogeneity in program structure; (2) limited engagement with stakeholders, especially regarding educational outcomes and community/health system needs; (3) a trainee-centered approach, including equity considerations, was not universal; and (4) less emphasis on quality of education, particularly faculty development in teaching. Conclusions Heterogeneity in accreditation can be appropriate, considering cultural or regulatory context. However, we identified broadly applicable areas for improvement: ensuring equitable access to training, taking a trainee-centered approach, emphasizing quality of teaching, and ensuring diverse stakeholder feedback.

Keywords