Advertisement

A Review of Continuous Quality Improvement Processes at Ten Medical Schools

  • Jason S. HedrickEmail author
  • Scott Cottrell
  • Debra Stark
  • Erica Brownfield
  • Hugh A. Stoddard
  • S. Marshall AngleJr
  • Lecretia A. Buckley
  • C. Randall Clinch
  • Karin Esposito
  • N. Kevin Krane
  • Vicki Park
  • Cayla R. Teal
  • Norman D. FerrariIII
Original Research
  • 55 Downloads

Abstract

The Liaison Committee on Medical Education now expects all allopathic medical schools to develop and adhere to a documentable continuous quality improvement (CQI) process. Medical schools must consider how to establish a defensible process that monitors compliance with accreditation standards between site visits. The purpose of this descriptive study is to detail how ten schools in the Association of American Medical Colleges’ (AAMC) Southern Group on Educational Affairs (SGEA) CQI Special Interest Group (SIG) are tackling practical issues of CQI development including establishing a CQI office, designating faculty and staff, charging a CQI committee, choosing software for data management, if schools are choosing formalized CQI models, and other considerations. The information presented is not meant to certify that any way is the correct way to manage CQI, but simply present some schools’ models. Future research should include defining commonalities of CQI models as well as seeking differences. Furthermore, what are components of CQI models that may affect accreditation compliance negatively? Are there “worst practices” to avoid? What LCME elements are most commonly identified for CQI, and what are the successes and struggles for addressing those elements? What are identifiable challenges relating to use of standard spreadsheet software and engaging information technology for support? How can students be more engaged and involved in the CQI process? Finally, how do these major shifts to a formalized CQI process impact the educational experience?

Keywords

LCME Accreditation Continuous quality improvement 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

None.

Disclaimer

None.

Previous Presentations

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Buchanan HS. The quality movement in higher education in the United States. Health Libr Rev. 1996;12(3):141–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roffe IM. Conceptual problems of continuous quality improvement and innovation in higher education. Qual Assur Educ. 1998;6(2):74–82.  https://doi.org/10.1108/09684889810205723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blouin D, Tekian A, Kamin C, Harris IB. The impact of accreditation on medical schools’ processes. Med Educ. 2018;52:182–91.  https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liaison Committee on Medical Education [LCME]. (2014–2015). Institutional Setting 1 in Functions and structures of a medical school: Standards for accreditation of medical education programs leading to the MD degree. Retrieved winter 2014–2015.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liaison Committee on Medical Education [LCME]. (2017–2018). Strategic Planning and Continuous Quality Improvement (Element 1.1) in Functions and structures of a medical school: Standards for accreditation of medical education programs leading to the MD degree. Retrieved from http://lcme.org/publications/#Standards. Accessed 2 March 2018.
  6. 6.
    Barzansky B, Hunt D, Moineau G, Ahn D, Lai CW, Humphrey H, et al. Continuous quality improvement in an accreditation system for undergraduate medical education: benefits and challenges. Med Teach. 2015;37(11):1032–8.  https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2015.1031735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liaison Committee on Medical Education [LCME]. Implementing a system for monitoring performance in LCME Accreditation Standards. October 19, 2016. Retrieved from http://lcme.org/publications/#White-Papers. Accessed 2 March 2018.
  8. 8.
    Blouin D, Tekian A. Accreditation of medical education programs: moving from student outcomes to continuous quality improvement measures. Acad Med. 2018;93(3):377–83.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001835. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shroyer AL, Lu WH, Chandran L. Drivers of dashboard development (3-D): a curricular continuous quality improvement approach. Acad Med. 2016;91(4):517–21.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001078. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jason S. Hedrick
    • 1
    Email author
  • Scott Cottrell
    • 1
  • Debra Stark
    • 2
  • Erica Brownfield
    • 3
  • Hugh A. Stoddard
    • 3
  • S. Marshall AngleJr
    • 4
  • Lecretia A. Buckley
    • 5
  • C. Randall Clinch
    • 6
  • Karin Esposito
    • 7
  • N. Kevin Krane
    • 8
  • Vicki Park
    • 9
  • Cayla R. Teal
    • 10
  • Norman D. FerrariIII
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of medical educationWest Virginia University School of MedicineMorgantownUSA
  2. 2.Department of medical educationThe University of Texas Rio Grande Valley School of MedicineEdinburgUSA
  3. 3.Emory University School of MedicineAtlantaUSA
  4. 4.Mercer University School of MedicineMaconUSA
  5. 5.University of Mississippi School of MedicineJacksonUSA
  6. 6.Wake Forest School of MedicineWinston-SalemUSA
  7. 7.Herbert Wertheim College of MedicineFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  8. 8.Tulane University School of MedicineNew OrleansUSA
  9. 9.University of Tennessee Health Science Center College of MedicineMemphisUSA
  10. 10.Texas A&M College of MedicineRound RockUSA

Personalised recommendations