Identifying the priorities for midwifery education across Australia and New Zealand: A Delphi study.

PROBLEM: In countries where education programmes are assessed as meeting international standards there is limited knowledge about the challenges facing midwifery education. BACKGROUND/AIM: The positive impact of quality midwifery education on maternal and newborn health is acknowledged by the World Health Organisation. However, there is limited research identifying the issues faced in providing quality midwifery education. The aim of this study was to identify the challenges and determine priority projects to strengthen midwifery education across Australia and New Zealand. METHODS: A two-round Delphi study with experts in midwifery education was undertaken. FINDINGS: In round one, 85 participants identified an initial 366 issues for midwifery education. Through thematic content analysis these were categorised into 89 statements reflecting five major themes: In round two, 105 midwifery experts from Australia n=86 (79%) and New Zealand n=23 (21%) rated the 89 statements in order of priority. Across the combined data (Australia and New Zealand) a total of 19 statements gained consensus of ≥80%. DISCUSSION: Five priority themes were identified including; (1) enabling success of First Peoples/Maori midwifery students; (2) increasing the visibility and influence of midwifery within regulation, accreditation and university governance; (3) determining how best to deliver the clinical practicum component of programmes; (4) reviewing midwifery programmes to enhance design, content and delivery; and (5) ongoing education and support for the midwifery workforce. CONCLUSION: In Australia and New Zealand, it is imperative that collaborative work is undertaken to design and action identified projects addressing these priorities.

The prevalence of psychosocial related terminology in chiropractic program courses, chiropractic accreditation standards, and chiropractic examining board testing content in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Spine related disorders entail biological (somatic), psychological, and social factors. Though biological factors are often emphasized, psychosocial considerations may not be receiving proper attention in the chiropractic field. Chiropractors treat spine complaints and therefore should be trained in the full spectrum of the biopsychosocial model. This study examines the use of psychosocial related terminology in United States doctor of chiropractic program (DCP) curricula, the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) standards, and the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE) test plans. METHODS: Nineteen academic course catalogs, CCE curricular standards and meta-competencies, and NBCE test plans were studied. Terms containing "psycho", "soci", "mental", "econom", "cultur", "emotion", "determinant", "public", "communit", "neighbor", "behav", or "cognitive" were identified in each document. Frequency of use, context of use, thematic categorization, and percentage of use compared to overall content were calculated and described. RESULTS: 'Public' is the most commonly used psychosocial related term in DCP curricula. 'Determinant' was used in 1 DCP curriculum. The number of courses with psychosocial related terminology in course titles and course descriptions ranged from 1 to 5 and 3 to 12, respectively. Most terms are found in clinical skills, special populations, and other miscellaneous courses, with fewer terms found in psychology and public health courses. Terminology use in course titles and descriptions compared to overall content ranges from 3.40 to 14.86%. CCE uses terminology 17 times across 5 (out of 8) total meta-competencies. NBCE includes terminology in test plans I and II, but not III or IV. CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence suggesting the influential role of psychosocial factors in determinants of health and healthcare delivery, these factors are poorly reflected in United States DCP curricula. This underappreciation is further evidenced by the lack of representation of psychosocial terminology in NBCE parts III and IV test plans. The reasons for this are theoretical; lack of clarity or enforcement of CCE meta-competencies may contribute.

The accreditation role of Councils on Chiropractic Education as part of the profession's journey from craft to allied health profession: a commentary.

BACKGROUND: Chiropractors see themselves as well positioned to provide safe, effective and economical care for the on-going financial burden that spinal pain imposes. However, in many places of the world, the chiropractic profession continues to find itself struggling to gain acceptance as a mainstream allied health care provider. There is evidence of the existence of undesirable chiropractic practice patterns and it is in part due to some of the world's accredited chiropractic programs. This indicated a need for scrutiny of international chiropractic educational accreditation standards, which are the responsibility of Councils on Chiropractic Education (CCEs). To this end we reviewed an emerging body of evidence about the chiropractic educational system in order to identify issues and make recommendations that may enhance professional acceptance through improved graduate outcomes and hopefully the quality of patient care. This commentary summarises the findings of that research. MAIN TEXT: We reviewed recent relevant studies, including our own, into the role and function of CCEs and found that there is sufficient evidence to identify areas of concern that could be addressed, at least in part, by improvements to CCEs' educational standards and processes. Areas included a lack of definitions for key terms such as, 'chiropractic', 'diagnosis', and 'competency', without which there can be no common understanding at a detailed level to inform graduate competencies and standards for a matching scope of practice. Further, there is some evidence to suggest that in some cases this level of detail is avoided in order to enable a "big tent" approach that allows for a diversity of approaches to clinical care to co-exist. This combined with the held view that chiropractic is "unique", highly valued, and best understood by other chiropractors, explains how students and practitioners can cling to 'traditional' thinking. This has implications for public safety and patient quality of care. CONCLUSION: If chiropractic care is to gain mainstream acceptance worldwide then it needs to adopt, through revitalised CCE accreditation standards and processes, those of other allied healthcare professions and wholeheartedly embrace science, evidence-based practice and patient centred care.

2019 United States Osteopathic Medical Regulatory Summit: Consensus, Recommendations, and Next Steps in Defining Osteopathic Distinctiveness.

BACKGROUND: Osteopathic distinctiveness is a result of professional education, identity formation, training, credentialing, and qualifications. With the advancement of a single graduate medical education (GME) accreditation system and the continued growth of the osteopathic medical profession, osteopathic distinctiveness and professional identity are seen as lacking clarity and pose a challenge. SUMMIT: To achieve consensus on a succinct definition of osteopathic distinctiveness and to identify steps to more clearly define and advance that distinctiveness, particularly in professional self-regulation, a representative group of osteopathic medical students, residents, physicians, and members of the licensing, GME, and undergraduate medical education (UME) communities convened the 2019 United States Osteopathic Medical Regulatory Summit in February 2019. Key features of osteopathic distinctiveness were discussed. Growth in the profession; changes in health care delivery, technology, and demographics within the profession and patient communities; and associated challenges and opportunities for osteopathic medical practice and patients were considered. CONSENSUS: Osteopathic medicine is a distinctive practice that brings unique, added value to patients, the public, and the health care community at large. A universal definition and common understanding of that distinctiveness is lacking. Efforts to unify messaging that defines osteopathic distinctiveness, to align the distinctive elements of osteopathic medical education and professional self-regulation across a continuum, and to advance research on care and educational program outcomes are critical to the future of the osteopathic medical profession. RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) Convene a task force of groups represented at the Summit to develop a succinct and consistent message defining osteopathic distinctiveness. (2) Demonstrate uniqueness of the profession through research demonstrating efficacy of care and patient outcomes, adding to the public good. (3) Harmonize GME and UME by beginning to align entrustable professional activities with UME milestones. (4) Convene representatives from osteopathic specialty colleges and certification boards to define curricular elements across GME, certification, and osteopathic continuous certification. (5) Build on the Project in Osteopathic Medical Education and Empathy study.

A failed review of CCE site inspection standards and processes.

Background: Accreditation of educational programs involves an independent agency assessing quality against a set of defined standards. Site inspection teams are appointed by an accrediting agency and compile a report with the intention of identifying deficiencies and making recommendations for their rectification and continued improvement. For chiropractic programs accreditation is carried out by Councils on Chiropractic Education (CCEs). However, the reliability of their site inspection teams remains unknown. Recent research has suggested that variability in chiropractic practice may be partially traced back to the education provider. This raises the possibility of deficient accreditation procedures that may include unsatisfactory site inspection standards or processes or the accreditation standards by which they work to.We sought to compare the various CCEs documented standards and processes for site inspection teams for similarities and differences with the intent of making recommendations to create uniform and high quality standards. Further, we sought to compare a sample of CCEs site inspection team surveys / reports for commonly identified recommendations and quality improvements and determine if they are adequately described in their accreditation standards. Method: In December of 2018 invitation emails were sent to 4 CCEs through their website portals outlining a proposed study investigating site inspection teams' standards and processes. Access was requested to all appropriately redacted documentation relating to site inspection teams and their chiropractic program reports. Follow up emails were sent several weeks later. Results: Only one of four of the CCEs responded by providing the requested information. Conclusion and recommendations: Three CCEs did not cooperate with this educational research. The possible reasons for the non-engagement is discussed.

A perspective on Councils on Chiropractic Education accreditation standards and processes from the inside: a narrative description of expert opinion: Part 2: Analyses of particular responses to research findings.

Background: This is the second article reporting on a study that sought the views of people with extensive experience in Councils on Chiropractic Education (CCEs) on research that has raised concerns about variability in accreditation standards and processes for chiropractic programs (CPs) and chiropractic practice in general. Methods: This qualitative study employed in-depth semi-structured interviews that consisted of open-ended questions asking experts about their thoughts and views on a range of issues surrounding accreditation, graduate competency standards and processes. The interviews were audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim in June and July of 2018. The transcripts were reviewed to develop codes and themes. The study followed the COREQ guidelines for qualitative studies. Results: The interviews revealed that these CCE experts were able to discern positive and negative elements of the accreditation standards and processes. They were, in general, satisfied with CCEs accreditation standards, graduating competencies, and site inspection processes. Most respondents believed that it was not possible to implement an identical set of international accreditation standards because of cultural and jurisdictional differences. This was thought more likely to be achieved if based on the notion of equivalence. Also, they expressed positive views toward an evidence-based CP curriculum and an outcomes-based assessment of student learning. However, they expressed concerns that an evidence-based approach may result in the overlooking of the clinician's experience. Diverse views were found on the presence of vitalism in CPs. These ranged from thinking vitalism should only be taught in an historical context, it was only a minority who held this view and therefore an insignificant issue. Finally, that CCEs should not regulate these personal beliefs, as this was potentially censorship. The notable absence was that the participants omitted any mention of the implications for patient safety, values and outcomes. Conclusions: Expert opinions lead us to conclude that CCEs should embrace and pursue the widely accepted mainstream healthcare standards of an evidence-based approach and place the interests of the patient above that of the profession. Recommendations are made to this end with the intent of improving CCE standards and processes of accreditation.

A perspective on Chiropractic Councils on Education accreditation standards and processes from the inside: a narrative description of expert opinion: Part 1: Themes.

Background: The aim of this study was to report on key informant opinions of Councils on Chiropractic Education (CCE) regarding recent research findings reporting on improving accreditation standards and processes for chiropractic programs (CPs). Methods: This qualitative study employed in-depth semi-structured interviews with key experienced personnel from the five CCEs in June and July of 2018. The interviews consisted of open-ended questions on a range of issues surrounding accreditation, graduate competency standards and processes. All interviews were audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were analysed to develop codes and themes using thematic analysis techniques assisted by NVivo coding software. The study followed the COREQ guidelines for qualitative studies. Results: Six themes were isolated from the interview transcripts; they were: professional differences; keep it in the family; to focus on outcomes or be prescriptive?; more resources please; inter-profession integration; and CPs making ends meet. Most respondents saw a need for CCEs standards and processes to improve interdisciplinarity while at the same time preserving the 'uniqueness' of chiropractic. Additionally, informants viewed CCEs as carrying out their functions with limited resources while simultaneously dealing with vocal disparate interest groups. Diverse views were observed on how CCEs should go about their business of assessing chiropractic programs for accreditation and re-accreditation. Conclusions: An overarching confounder for positive changes in CCE accreditation standards and processes is the inability to clearly define basic and fundamental terms such as 'chiropractic' and its resultant scope of practice. This is said to be because of vocal, diverse and disparate interest groups within the chiropractic profession. Silence or nebulous definitions negotiated in order to allow a diversity of chiropractic practice to co-exist, appears to have complicated and hindered the activities of CCEs. Recommendations are made including an adoption of an evidence-based approach to accreditation standards and processes and the use of expertise from other health professions. Further, the focus of attention should be moved away from professional interests and toward that of protection of the public and the patient.

Core Competencies for Pediatric Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Fellowship Training.

BACKGROUND: Learners developing competency-based skills, attitudes, and knowledge through the achievement of defined milestones is a core feature of competency-based medical education. In 2017, a special interest study group of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry convened a panel of specialists to describe pediatric consultation-liaison psychiatry (CLP) best educational practices during child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this project was to develop a national consensus on pediatric CLP competencies to help guide training in this specialty. METHODS: An expert working group developed a list of candidate competences based on previously established educational outcomes for CLP (formerly Psychosomatic Medicine), child and adolescent psychiatry, and general psychiatry. A survey was distributed to members of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Physically Ill Child Committee to determine child and adolescent psychiatry fellowship educational needs on pediatric CLP services and generate consensus regarding pediatric CLP competencies. RESULTS: Most survey respondents were supportive of the need for a national consensus on core competencies for pediatric CLP. Consensus from a panel of experts in the field of pediatric CLP generated a list of proposed core competencies that track the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's six core competencies. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent learning outcomes provide the foundation for further development of tools to support training in pediatric CLP. There is a need to develop further tools including outcome assessment instruments and self-directed learning materials that can be used to support lifelong learning.

Creating Consensus: Revisiting the Emergency Medicine Resident Scholarly Activity Requirement.

INTRODUCTION: In the context of the upcoming single accreditation system for graduate medical education resulting from an agreement between the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), American Osteopathic Association and American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, we saw the opportunity for charting a new course for emergency medicine (EM) scholarly activity (SA). Our goal was to engage relevant stakeholders to produce a consensus document. METHODS: Consensus building focused on the goals, definition, and endpoints of SA. Representatives from stakeholder organizations were asked to help develop a survey regarding the SA requirement. The survey was then distributed to those with vested interests. We used the preliminary data to find areas of concordance and discordance and presented them at a consensus-building session. Outcomes were then re-ranked. RESULTS: By consensus, the primary role(s) of SA should be the following: 1) instruct residents in the process of scientific inquiry; 2) expose them to the mechanics of research; 3) teach them lifelong skills, including search strategies and critical appraisal; and 4) teach them how to formulate a question, search for the answer, and evaluate its strength. To meet these goals, the activity should have the general elements of hypothesis generation, data collection and analytical thinking, and interpretation of results. We also determined consensus on the endpoints, and acceptable documentation of the outcome. CONCLUSION: This consensus document may serve as a best-practices guideline for EM residency programs by delineating the goals, definitions, and endpoints for EM residents' SA. However, each residency program must evaluate its available scholarly activity resources and individually implement requirements by balancing the ACGME Review Committee for Emergency Medicine requirements with their own circumstances.

Single Accreditation System for Graduate Medical Education: Transition Update.

In 2014, the American Osteopathic Association, the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education agreed to establish a new, single accreditation system for graduate medical education in the United States. This article focuses on recent policy enhancements and modifications to facilitate the transition to the single accreditation system and concludes with a discussion of the current transition planning after the end of the transition period on June 30, 2020.

An international systems-theoretic comparison of hospital accreditation: developing an implementation typology.

OBJECTIVE: The integration of quality indicators into the accreditation process has been recognized as a promising strategy worldwide. This study was to explore the implementation patterns of hospital accreditation through the lens of a systems-theory based model, and determine an international accreditation implementation typology. DESIGN: A qualitative comparative study of five established international hospital accreditation systems was undertaken based on a systems-theoretic holistic healthcare systems relationship model. A set of key attributes relevant to three systems-theoretic model relationships guided data collection, comparison and synthesis. SETTING: Hospital accreditation systems in five countries: America, Canada, Australia, Taiwan and France. RESULTS: An accreditation implementation typology was developed based on the data synthesis of the similarities and differences among the relationships. A typology including five implementation types of hospital accreditation systems (TYPE I-V) was induced. TYPE I is a basic stand-alone accreditation system. The higher types represent stronger relationships among accreditation system, healthcare organizations and quality measurement systems. The five settings have shifted their accreditation approaches from the basic type (TYPE I). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation typology of hospital accreditation could serve as a roadmap for refining hospital accreditation systems toward an integrative approach for continuous quality improvement.

Preparing Osteopathic Students for the Single Graduate Medical Education Accreditation System: Evaluating Factors for Match Success in Emergency Medicine.

INTRODUCTION: With the development of and progression toward a single graduate medical education accreditation system combining the current Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and American Osteopathic Association (AOA) residency programs, the total number of students competing for the same postgraduate training spots will continue to rise. Given this increasing competition for emergency medicine (EM) residency positions, understanding factors that contribute to match success is important to ensure a successful match for osteopathic medical students. METHODS: Our anonymous survey to evaluate factors that led to a successful match was sent out to residents in current ACGME-, AOA-, and dually-accredited programs via the AOA program director listserv and the Council of Residency Directors (CORD) e-mail listserv in 2017. RESULTS: We had 218 responses. Responses showed that osteopathic graduates had less affiliation with EM residencies, their home institutions provided less information regarding standardized letters of evaluations (SLOE), and that successful osteopathic graduates seemed to learn about them while on EM elective rotations. These students also had less direct EM mentorship and were generally unsatisfied with the level of mentorship available. Osteopathic graduates in current ACGME programs were also more likely to have taken the United States Medical Licensing Examination compared to their AOA resident counterparts. CONCLUSION: Osteopathic medical schools can improve their graduates' chances of successfully matching in EM by establishing mentorship programs and educating their students early about SLOEs.

Comparing the old to the new: A comparison of similarities and differences of the accreditation standards of the chiropractic council on education-international from 2010 to 2016.

Background: Chiropractic programs are accredited and monitored by regional Councils on Chiropractic Education (CCE). The CCE-International has historically been a federation of regional CCEs charged with harmonising world standards to produce quality chiropractic educational programs. The standards for accreditation periodically undergo revision. We conducted a comparison of the CCE-International 2016 Accreditation Standards with the previous version, looking for similarities and differences, expecting to see some improvements. Method: The CCE-International current (2016) and previous versions (2010) were located and downloaded. Word counts were conducted for words thought to reflect content and differences between standards. These were tabulated to identify similarities and differences. Interpretation was made independently followed by discussion between two researchers. Results: The 2016 standards were nearly 3 times larger than the previous standards. The 2016 standards were created by mapping and selection of common themes from member CCEs' accreditation standards and not through an evidence-based approach to the development and trialling of accreditation standards before implementation. In 2010 chiropractors were expected to provide attention to the relationship between the structural and neurological aspects of the body in health and disease. In 2016 they should manage mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system. Many similarities between the old and the new standards were found. Additions in 2016 included a hybrid model of accreditation founded on outcomes-based assessment of education and quality improvement. Both include comprehensive competencies for a broader role in public health. Omissions included minimal faculty qualifications and the requirement that students should be able to critically appraise scientific and clinical knowledge. Another omission was the requirement for chiropractic programs to be part of a not-for-profit educational entity. There was no mention of evidence-based practice in either standards but the word 'evidence-informed' appeared once in the 2016 standards. Conclusions: Some positive changes have taken place, such as having bravely moved towards the musculoskeletal model, but on the negative side, the requirement to produce graduates skilled at dealing with scientific texts has been removed. A more robust development approach including better transparency is needed before implementation of CCE standards and evidence-based concepts should be integrated in the programs. The CCE-International should consider the creation of a recognition of excellence in educational programs and not merely propose minimal standards.

Educational renewal of physician training in Australia and New Zealand: Multiple educational innovations in a complex environment.

AIM: The Royal Australasian College of Physicians is renewing its specialty training programs and shifting towards competency-based medical education. Our aim is to improve the quality and rigor of training and graduate outcomes, and promote high standards of physician practice to serve the health of patients, families, and communities in a changing healthcare environment. METHODS: We are progressing holistic change and multiple educational innovations in a complex environment. Numerous stakeholders, a disparate training landscape and a largely volunteer supervisor workforce pose challenges in supporting effective implementation. This paper describes our progress and experience with three key components of our education renewal program: curricular renewal, a new selection process and faculty development. It offers reflections on the practical challenges, lessons learned and factors critical for success. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience highlights opportunities for training organizations to maximize their influence over workplace training experiences and outcomes by taking a systems approach to the design, delivery and evaluation of the components of education renewal. We found that design, development and delivery of our multiple educational innovations have benefited from co-design approaches, progressive and concurrent development, continual exploration of new strategies, and implementation as soon as viable with a commitment to iterative improvements over time.

Understanding ACGME Scholarly Activity Requirements for General Surgery Programs in the Era of Single Accreditation and the Next Accreditation System.

Becoming compliant with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements for scholarly activity and remaining compliant over time requires time and attention to the development of an environment of inquiry, which is reflected in detailed documentation submitted in program applications and annual updates. Since the beginning of the next accreditation system, all ACGME programs have been required to submit evidence of scholarly activity of both residents and faculty on an annual basis. Since 2014, American Osteopathic Association-accredited programs have been able to apply for ACGME accreditation under the Single Graduate Medical Education Accreditation initiative. The Residency Program Director, Chair, Designated Institutional Official, Faculty, and coordinator need to work cohesively to ensure compliance with all program requirements, including scholarly activity in order for American Osteopathic Association-accredited programs to receive Initial ACGME Accreditation and for current ACGME-accredited programs to maintain accreditation. Fortunately, there are many ways to show the type of scholarly activity that is required for the training of surgeons. In this article, we will review the ACGME General Surgery Program Requirements and definitions of scholarly activity. We will also offer suggestions for how programs may show evidence of scholarly activity.

Cross-sectional description of nursing and midwifery pre-service education accreditation in east, central, and southern Africa in 2013.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the World Health Organization issued guidelines, Transforming and Scaling Up Health Professional Education and Training, to improve the quality and relevance of health professional pre-service education. Central to these guidelines was establishing and strengthening education accreditation systems. To establish what current accreditation systems were for nursing and midwifery education and highlight areas for strengthening these systems, a study was undertaken to document the pre-service accreditation policies, approaches, and practices in 16 African countries relative to the 2013 WHO guidelines. METHODS: This study utilized a cross-sectional group survey with a standardized questionnaire administered to a convenience sample of approximately 70 nursing and midwifery leaders from 16 countries in east, central, and southern Africa. Each national delegation completed one survey together, representing the responses for their country. RESULTS: Almost all countries in this study (15; 94%) mandated pre-service nursing education accreditation However, there was wide variation in who was responsible for accrediting programs. The percent of active programs accredited decreased by program level from 80% for doctorate programs to 62% for masters nursing to 50% for degree nursing to 35% for diploma nursing programs. The majority of countries indicated that accreditation processes were transparent (i.e., included stakeholder engagement (81%), self-assessment (100%), evaluation feedback (94%), and public disclosure (63%)) and that the processes were evaluated on a routine basis (69%). Over half of the countries (nine; 56%) reported limited financial resources as a barrier to increasing accreditation activities, and seven countries (44%) noted limited materials and technical expertise. CONCLUSION: In line with the 2013 WHO guidelines, there was a strong legal mandate for nursing education accreditation as compared to the global average of 50%. Accreditation levels were low in the programs that produce the majority of the nurses in this region and were higher in public programs than non-public programs. WHO guidelines for transparency and routine review were met more so than standards-based and independent accreditation processes. The new global strategy, Workforce 2030, has renewed the focus on accreditation and provides an opportunity to strengthen pre-service accreditation and ensure the production of a qualified and relevant nursing workforce.

Meeting ACGME Standards Under a Unified Accreditation System: Challenges for Osteopathic Graduate Medical Education Programs.

In 2014, the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) and the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) to create a unified accreditation system for graduate medical education (GME) under the ACGME. The AOA will cease to accredit GME programs on June 30, 2020. By then, AOA-accredited programs need to apply for and achieve ACGME initial accreditation. The terms of the MOU also made it advantageous for some formerly nonteaching hospitals to establish AOA programs, chiefly in primary care, as a step toward future ACGME accreditation.In transitioning AOA programs to the ACGME system, hospitals with osteopathic GME can expect to encounter challenges related to major differences between AOA and ACGME standards. The minimum numbers of residents for ACGME programs in most specialties are greater than those for AOA programs, which will require hospitals that may already be at their federal caps to add additional residency positions. ACGME standards are also more faculty- and staff-intensive and require additional infrastructure, necessitating additional financial investments. In addition, greater curricular specificity in ACGME standards will generate new educational and financial challenges.To address these challenges, hospitals may need to reallocate resources and positions among their current AOA programs, reducing the number of programs (and specialties) they sponsor. It is expected that a number of established and new AOA programs will choose not to pursue ACGME accreditation or will fail to qualify for ACGME initial accreditation.

Allopathic and Osteopathic Medicine Unify GME Accreditation: A Historic Convergence.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 1968, the American Medical Association resolved to accept qualified graduates of osteopathic medical schools into its accredited Graduate Medical Education (GME) programs. An equally momentous decision was arrived at in 2014 when the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), and the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM) resolved to institute a single unified GME accreditation system by July 1, 2020. As envisioned, the unified accreditation system will all but assure system-wide consistency of purpose and practice in anticipation of the Next Accreditation System (NAS) of the ACGME. Governance integration replete with AOA and AACOM and osteopathic representation on the ACGME Board of Directors is now well underway. What is more, osteopathic representation on current Review Committees (RCs) and in a newly established one with an osteopathic focus has been instituted. Viewed broadly, the unification of the GME accreditation system goes a long way toward recognizing the overlapping characteristics in the training and practice of allopathic and osteopathic medicine. As such, this momentous development represents the latest, indeed boldest leap toward convergence between the two historic branches of American medicine. In this Health Policy Analysis we seek to place the impending unification of the GME accreditation process in its historical context, delineate its near-term impact, and discuss the potential long-term implications thereof.