↓ Skip to main content

How changing quality management influenced PGME accreditation: a focus on decentralization and quality improvement

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How changing quality management influenced PGME accreditation: a focus on decentralization and quality improvement
Published in
BMC Medical Education, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0937-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nesibe Akdemir, Kiki M. J. M. H. Lombarts, Emma Paternotte, Bas Schreuder, Fedde Scheele

Abstract

Evaluating the quality of postgraduate medical education (PGME) programs through accreditation is common practice worldwide. Accreditation is shaped by educational quality and quality management. An appropriate accreditation design is important, as it may drive improvements in training. Moreover, accreditors determine whether a PGME program passes the assessment, which may have major consequences, such as starting, continuing or discontinuing PGME. However, there is limited evidence for the benefits of different choices in accreditation design. Therefore, this study aims to explain how changing views on educational quality and quality management have impacted the design of the PGME accreditation system in the Netherlands. To determine the historical development of the Dutch PGME accreditation system, we conducted a document analysis of accreditation documents spanning the past 50 years and a vision document outlining the future system. A template analysis technique was used to identify the main elements of the system. Four themes in the Dutch PGME accreditation system were identified: (1) objectives of accreditation, (2) PGME quality domains, (3) quality management approaches and (4) actors' responsibilities. Major shifts have taken place regarding decentralization, residency performance and physician practice outcomes, and quality improvement. Decentralization of the responsibilities of the accreditor was absent in 1966, but this has been slowly changing since 1999. In the future system, there will be nearly a maximum degree of decentralization. A focus on outcomes and quality improvement has been introduced in the current system. The number of formal documents striving for quality assurance has increased enormously over the past 50 years, which has led to increased bureaucracy. The future system needs to decrease the number of standards to focus on measurable outcomes and to strive for quality improvement. The challenge for accreditors is to find the right balance between trusting and controlling medical professionals. Their choices will be reflected in the accreditation design. The four themes could enhance international comparisons and encourage better choices in the design of accreditation systems.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Researcher 4 21%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Professor 1 5%
Other 5 26%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 21%
Social Sciences 3 16%
Psychology 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 2 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 November 2018.
All research outputs
#7,777,181
of 13,851,031 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,141
of 2,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,867
of 268,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,851,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,053 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,998 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them