Barriers to the implementation of research priorities in medical education from the point of view of medical education experts at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the barriers to the implementation of research priorities in medical education from the viewpoint of educational experts. METHODS: The qualitative study was conducted at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran, from April to October 2016, and comprised medical education professors and experts working at the university's Education Development Centre. These professors had Master degree or PhD in medical education. Content analysis method was used after data was collected using semi-structured interviews followed by focus group discussions. RESULTS: There were 22 academicians in the study. Four themes, each with some sub-themes, were extracted out of the 86 codes derived from the interviews. The themes were: general priorities in educational research, lack of a comprehensive educational research database in medical sciences, discrimination among departments concerning budget, and the lack of the research spirit and teamwork were more prominent. Based on these themes, barriers identified fell in the two categories: manpower and financial resources. CONCLUSIONS: The barriers can partly be eliminated through modifying the mentality and attitude toward research and teamwork in the university, proper planning in the budget of the educational field and managing the university research system.

The main indicators for Iranian hospital ethical accreditation.

INTRODUCTION: The application of organizational ethics in hospitals is one of the novel ways to improve medical ethics. Nowadays achieving efficient and sufficient ethical hospital indicators seems to be inevitable. In this connection, the present study aims to determine the best indicators in hospital accreditation. METHODS: 69 indicators in 11 fields to evaluate hospital ethics were achieved through a five-step qualitative and quantitative study including literature review, expert focus group, Likert scale survey, 3 rounded Delphi, and content validity measurement. Expert focus group meeting was conducted, employing Nominal Group Technique (NGT). After running NGT, a three rounded Delphi and parallel to Delphi and a Likert scale survey were performed to obtain objective indicators for each domain. The experts were all healthcare professionals who were also medical ethics researchers, teachers, or PhD students. Content validity measurements were computed, using the viewpoints of two different expert groups, some ethicists, and some health care professionals (n=46). RESULTS: After conducting NGT, Delphi, Likert survey, 11 main domains were listed including:  Informed consent, Medical confidentiality, Physician-patient economic relations, Ethics consultation policy in the hospital, Ethical charter of hospital, Breaking bad medical news protocol, Respect for the patients' rights, Clinical ethics committee, Spiritual and palliative care unit programs in the hospitals, Healthcare professionals' communication skills, and Equitable access to the healthcare. Also 71 objective indicators for these 11 domains were listed in 11 tables with 5 to 8 indicators per table. Content Validity Ratio (CVR) measurements were done and 69 indicators were highlighted. CONCLUSION: The domains listed in this study seem to be the most important ones for evaluating hospital ethics programs and services. Healthcare organizations' accreditation and ranking are crucial for the improvement of healthcare services. Ethics programs would also motivate hospitals to improve their services and move towards patients' satisfaction. In this regard, more involvement of bioethicists can help healthcare organizations to develop ethics programs and ensure ethics-based practice in hospitals.