medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-5057 (Print)
Investigación en Educación Médica

2024, Number 49

<< Back Next >>

Inv Ed Med 2024; 13 (49)

Medical education programs accreditation: comparison of results between evaluation teams

Martínez-González A, García-Minjares M, Zapata Castilleja CA, Hernández-Hernández J, Hernández-Tinoco J, Santacruz-Varela J

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 65-75
PDF size: 380.52 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: In Mexico, the Mexican Council for the Accreditation of Medical Education A.C. (COMAEM, by its acronym in Spanish) is in charge of the accreditation of medical education programs taught by medical schools and for this it relies on two teams, the Evaluation Team (ET) and the Pre-determination Team (PT).
Objective: To compare the results of the accreditation process of medical schools and faculties carried out by the ETs and PTs, which establishes the COMAEM accreditation instrument.
Method: The results of 39 educational programs of Mexican medical schools and colleges accredited by COMAEM between 2019 and 2022 were analyzed. A database provided by COMAEM was used and a descriptive analysis was carried out with measures of central tendency and dispersion to compare the evaluation scores assigned by the ET and PT according to different variables. Student’s t-test was applied for independent samples in order to identify whether there were significant differences.
Results: The scores assigned by the ETs and the PTs during the accreditation processes of 39 medical educational programs were similar for global and total results and for the different types of indicators; basic, essential and quality, with some differences that were not statistically significant. Better scores and greater homogeneity were found among the programs for the basic and essential indicators than for the quality ones, which also had a greater dispersion, which suggests a greater maturity of the schools to comply with the basic and essential indicators than with the quality indicators.
Conclusions: The competence of both teams is similar and their experience, interpretation of the accreditation standards and the impartiality to carry it out provide suf􀁭- cient reliability to the accreditation carried out by COMAEM and is a guarantee for medical schools.


REFERENCES

  1. Frank JR, Taber S, Van Zanten M, Scheele F, Blouin D.The role of accreditation in 21st century health professionseducation: report of an International Consensus Group.BMC Med Educ. 2020;20 (Suppl 1):305. Disponible en:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02121-5

  2. Bandiera G, Frank J, Scheele F, Karpinski J, & PhilibertI. Effective accreditation in postgraduate medical education:from process to outcomes and back. BMC Med Educ.2020;20(Supp 1):1-7. Disponible en: https://bit.ly/41HZzi9

  3. WHO-WFME. Accreditation of medical education institutions.Report of a technical meeting. 2004. Copenhagen, Denmark.Disponible en: https://bit.ly/48gUIHj

  4. Cueto J, Burch V, Mohd A, Afolabi B, Ismail Z, Jafri W, et al.Accreditation of undergraduate medical training programs:practices in nine developing countries as compared with theUnited States. Education for Health. 2006;19(2):207-222.Disponible en: https://goo.su/bByO

  5. Bedoll D, Van Zanten M, McKinley D. Tendencias globalesen la acreditación de la educación médica. Hum Resour Salud.2021;19,70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-021-00588-x

  6. WHO/WFME. Guidelines for Accreditation of Basic MedicalEducation. Geneva/Copenhagen. 2005. Disponibleen: https://wfme.org/download/who-wfme-guidelinesfor-accreditation-of-basic-medical-education_english/

  7. Shireman R. For-Profit Medical Schools – Concerns aboutQuality and Oversight. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(23):2105-7.Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36472947/

  8. Rillo AG, Martínez-Carrillo BE, Contreras-Mayén RG,Valdés-Ramos R, Castillo-Cardiel JA. Congruencia de losestándares para evaluar la calidad de la educación médicaen México. Inv Ed Med. 2022;11(42):42-54. Disponible en:https://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/iem/v11n42/2007-5057-iem-11-42-42.pdf

  9. Estándares globales de la WFME para la mejora de calidad.Educ. méd. 2004;7(2):39-52. Disponible en: t.ly/I1mYe

  10. Weisz G, Nannestad B. The World Health Organization andthe global standardization of medical training, a history. GlobalHealth. 2021;17(96). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-021-00733-0

  11. WFME. Justificación de la Acreditación. 2004. [Consultado:20.05.2023]. https://wfme.org/recognition/accreditation/

  12. Morasso AA. Confiabilidad, validez e imparcialidad enevaluación educativa. Cuadernillo técnico de evaluacióneducativa. MIDE UC - INEE. 2019 [consultado el 19 dejunio de 2023]. Disponible en: https://goo.su/KcOTdK9

  13. Lerchenfeldt S, Mi M, Eng M. The utilization of peer feedbackduring collaborative learning in undergraduate medical education:a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):321.Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31443705/

  14. Lerchenfeldt S, Taylor TAH. Best practices in peer assessment:training tomorrow´s physicians to obtain and provide qualityfeedback. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2020;11:571-8. Disponible en:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32922116/

  15. Blouin D, Tekian A, Kamin C, Harris IB. The impact of accreditationon medical schools' processes. Med Educ. 2018;52:182-91. Disponible: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29044652/

  16. Davis DJ, Ringsted C. Accreditation of undergraduate andgraduate medical education: how do the standards contributeto quality? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2006;11:305-313.Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16832712/

  17. Van Zanten M, McKinley D, Durante I & Pijano C. Medicaleducation accreditation in Mexico and the Philippines: Impacton student outcomes. Med Educ. 2012;46:586-92. Disponibleen: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04212.x

  18. Gaxiola-García MA, Villalpando-Casas JDJ, García-MinjaresM, Martínez-González A. National examination for medicalresidency admission: academic performance in a high-stakestest and the need for continuing education. Postgrad Med J.2022. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35470249/

  19. Hernández FJ, De la Cruz OI, Razo PAE. Perfil de los evaluadorespares en México (2014 – 2017). Rev Mex InvestigEduc. 2020;25(86):627-656. Disponible en: t.ly/xNyUE

  20. Comisión Nacional de Acreditación CNA, Chile. Manualde pares evaluadores. Guía para la evaluación externa confines de acreditación de carreras y programas de pregrado.2008. Disponible en: www.cnachile.cl




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com