Analysis of the degree of social accountability in accreditation standards for basic medical education

Sangmi T Lee, Eunbae B. Yang
{"title":"Analysis of the degree of social accountability in accreditation standards for basic medical education","authors":"Sangmi T Lee, Eunbae B. Yang","doi":"10.17496/kmer.23.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to the World Health Organization, for medical schools to fulfill their obligation of social accountability, it is necessary for medical education, research, and service areas to ref lect the healthcare system’s relevance, quality, cost-effectiveness, and equity. This study utilized Boelen and Heck’s (1995) social accountability grid model to analyze the degree to which the Accreditation Standards of Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation 2019 (ASK2019) standards apply the World Federation for Medical Education’s (WFME) standards. The social accountability characteristics of the former were compared to those of the WFME, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, and the Australian Medical Council. Experts with experience and certification in medical education and evaluation classified the ASK2019 standards according to the grid model, evaluated social accountability perspectives, and categorized them according to the process, content, and outcome. Of the 92 standards, 61 (66.30%) were selected as social accountability standards; these encompassed all areas. There was a particular focus on outcome-related areas, such as “mission and outcomes,” “student assessment,” “educational evaluation,” and “continuous improvement.” Education and quality were the most common (33, 54.11%), followed by 18 standards related to education and relevance. However, the standards on cost effectiveness and equity corresponding to education, research, and service were significantly insufficient. As a result of classification using a logic model, many criteria were incorporated into the process, producing results similar to those of international accreditation institutions. Therefore, to fulfill medical schools’ social accountability, it is necessary to develop cost effectiveness and equity standards with reference to grid models and expand them beyond education to include research and service areas. Developing content and outcome standards is also required.","PeriodicalId":486887,"journal":{"name":"Uihak gyoyuk nondan","volume":"39 38","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Uihak gyoyuk nondan","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17496/kmer.23.014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

According to the World Health Organization, for medical schools to fulfill their obligation of social accountability, it is necessary for medical education, research, and service areas to ref lect the healthcare system’s relevance, quality, cost-effectiveness, and equity. This study utilized Boelen and Heck’s (1995) social accountability grid model to analyze the degree to which the Accreditation Standards of Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation 2019 (ASK2019) standards apply the World Federation for Medical Education’s (WFME) standards. The social accountability characteristics of the former were compared to those of the WFME, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, and the Australian Medical Council. Experts with experience and certification in medical education and evaluation classified the ASK2019 standards according to the grid model, evaluated social accountability perspectives, and categorized them according to the process, content, and outcome. Of the 92 standards, 61 (66.30%) were selected as social accountability standards; these encompassed all areas. There was a particular focus on outcome-related areas, such as “mission and outcomes,” “student assessment,” “educational evaluation,” and “continuous improvement.” Education and quality were the most common (33, 54.11%), followed by 18 standards related to education and relevance. However, the standards on cost effectiveness and equity corresponding to education, research, and service were significantly insufficient. As a result of classification using a logic model, many criteria were incorporated into the process, producing results similar to those of international accreditation institutions. Therefore, to fulfill medical schools’ social accountability, it is necessary to develop cost effectiveness and equity standards with reference to grid models and expand them beyond education to include research and service areas. Developing content and outcome standards is also required.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基础医学教育评审标准的社会问责度分析
世界卫生组织认为,医学院要履行社会责任,就必须在医学教育、研究和服务领域反映医疗保健系统的相关性、质量、成本效益和公平性。本研究利用Boelen和Heck(1995)的社会责任网格模型来分析2019年韩国医学教育和评估研究所认证标准(ASK2019)标准适用世界医学教育联合会(WFME)标准的程度。将前者的社会责任特征与妇女家庭基金、医学教育联络委员会和澳大利亚医学理事会的社会责任特征进行了比较。具有医学教育和评估经验和认证的专家根据网格模型对ASK2019标准进行分类,对社会责任视角进行评估,并根据过程、内容和结果进行分类。92项标准中,61项(66.30%)被选为社会责任标准;这些包括所有领域。特别关注与结果相关的领域,如“使命和结果”、“学生评估”、“教育评估”和“持续改进”。教育和质量是最常见的(33,54.11%),其次是与教育和相关性相关的18个标准。但是,教育、研究和服务的成本效益和公平标准明显不足。由于使用逻辑模型进行分类,许多标准被纳入该过程,产生的结果与国际认证机构的结果相似。因此,为了履行医学院的社会责任,有必要参照网格模型制定成本效益和公平标准,并将其扩展到教育以外的研究和服务领域。还需要制定内容和结果标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Concept of Health Systems Science and Educational Needs in the Korean Context What Are the Current Status and Educational Needs of Global Health Education in Medical Schools? A Nationwide Survey in Korea Development and Implementation of Health Systems Science Education in the Clinical Learning Environment Strategies for Structuring Health Systems Science Curriculum in the Korean Medical Education: A Study Based on an Analysis of the Domestic Status of Health Systems Science Education and Case Studies of US Medical Schools Instructional Design for Systems Thinking Education in Health Systems Science
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1