Realist evaluation of UK medical education quality assurance

Author:

Crampton PaulORCID,Mehdizadeh Leila,Page MichaelORCID,Knight Laura,Griffin Ann

Abstract

ObjectivesThe aim of the study was to explore what components of the General Medical Council’s (GMC) Quality Assurance Framework work, for whom, in what circumstances and how?SettingUK undergraduate and postgraduate medical education and training.ParticipantsWe conducted interviews with a stratified sample of 36 individuals. This included those who had direct experiences, as well as those with external insights, representing local, national and international organisations within and outside medicine.InterventionThe GMC quality assure education to protect patient and public safety utilising complex intervention components including meeting standards, institutional visits and monitoring performance. However, the context in which these are implemented matters. We undertook an innovative realist evaluation to test an initial programme theory. Data were analysed using framework analysis.ResultsAcross components of the intervention, we identified key mechanisms, including transparent reporting to promote quality improvement; dialogical feedback; partnership working facilitating interactions between regulators and providers, and role clarity in conducting proportionate interventions appropriate to risk. The GMC’s framework was commended for being comprehensive and enabling a broad understanding of an organisation’s performance. Unintended consequences included confusion over roles and boundaries in different contexts which often undermined effectiveness.ConclusionsThis realist evaluation substantiates the literature and reveals deeper understandings about quality assuring medical education. While standardised approaches are implemented, interventions need to be contextually proportionate. Routine communication is beneficial to verify data, share concerns and check risk; however, ongoing partnership working can foster assurance. The study provides a modified programme theory to explicate how education providers and regulators can work more effectively together to uphold education quality, and ultimately protect public safety. The findings have influenced the GMC’s approach to quality assurance which impacts on all medical students and doctors in training.

Funder

General Medical Council

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

General Medicine

Cited by 12 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Service Providers’ Perspectives of an Integrated Community Mental Health Service in the UK;Community Mental Health Journal;2024-09-13

2. Accreditation Approaches for Professional Education Programs: Towards Best Practice;Journal of Veterinary Medical Education;2023-04-20

3. Quality in Practice;Teaching Psychiatry to Undergraduates;2022-10-13

4. Quality in Medical Education;Teaching Psychiatry to Undergraduates;2022-10-13

5. Quality assurance in health professions education: Role of accreditation and licensure;Medical Education;2022-07-29

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3