Pre-survey Meeting withResident Representatives &
Senior Residents
Date: September 12, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.Osler Amphitheatre
McGill University
Objectives of the Meeting
To review the:• Accreditation Process• Categories of Accreditation• Standards of Accreditation• Role of residents in the accreditation
process• Pilot accreditation process
Conjoint Visit
3
•Planning•Organization•Conduct•Share the cost•One decision taken at the Royal College
Accreditation Committee
Collège des médecins du Québec
4
Mission• To promote quality medicine so as to protect the public
and help improve the health of Quebecers.Since 1847• In Quebec, legal responsibility for the accreditation of
residency programs is assigned to the CMQ pursuant to regulations made under the Loi médicale and the Code des professions.
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
5
Mission• To improve the health and care of Canadians by leading in
medical education, professional standards, physician competence and continuous enhancement of the health system.
Since 1929• A special Act of Parliament established The Royal College
of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada to oversee postgraduate medical education for medical and surgical specialties.
What is Accreditation
6
Accreditation is a mechanism for evaluating residency programs and institutions in order to ensure the quality of
postgraduate medical education.
• It makes it possible to verify:• That appropriate objectives are set• That resources necessary to the attainment
of objectives are available• That objectives are effectively attained and
will continue to be attained
Principles of Accreditation
7
• Continuing quality improvement process• Peer-reviewed• Based on Standards• Categories of Accreditation
Pilot Accreditation Process
8
McGill University is one of three universities participating in a pilot accreditation process!
• Survey will be conducted in two distinct parts:
– A Standards review– B Standards review
• Details for the pilot process will be discussed later in presentation
Six-Year Survey Cycle
1
2
34
5
6
Monitoring
Internal Reviews
Process for Pre-Survey Questionnaires
10
Royal CollegeComments
Questionnaires
University
Specialty Committee
Questionnaires
Questionnaires &Comments
Program Director
Comments
Surveyor
The Survey Team
11
• Chair - Dr. Mark Walton– Responsible for general conduct of survey
• Surveyors • Resident representatives – FMRQ• Regulatory authorities representative -
CMQ
Information Given to Surveyors
12
•Questionnaire (PSQ) and appendices– Completed by program
•Program-specific Standards (OTR/STR/SSA)
•Report of last regular survey•Specialty Committee comments
– Also sent to PGD / PD prior to visit•Exam results for last six years•Reports of mandated Royal College/CMQ
reviews since last regular survey, if applicable
The Survey Schedule
13
Includes:• Document review (30 min)
• Meetings with:– Program director (75 min)– Department chairs (30 min)– Residents – per group of 20 (60 min)– Teaching staff (60 min)– Residency Program Committee (60 min)
The Survey Schedule
14
Document review (30 min)• Residency Program Committee Minutes• Resident Assessments
Meeting Overview
15
•Program director• Overall view of program• Evaluation of Standards
•Department chair• Support for program• Resources available to program
•Teaching faculty• Involvement with residents• Communication with program director
Meeting with ALL Residents
16
•Group(s) of 20 residents (60 min)
• If off-site, tele- or video- conferencing•Looking for balance of strengths &
weaknesses•Focus on Standards•Evaluate the learning environment
Meeting with ALL Residents
17
•Topics to discuss with residents– Objectives– Educational experiences– Service /education balance– Increasing professional responsibility– Academic program / protected time– Supervision– Assessments of resident performance– Evaluation of program / assessment of faculty– Career counseling– Educational environment– Safety
Meeting with Residency Program Committee
Resident representative(s) to attend• Review Committee responsibilities• Functioning appropriately• Opportunity for surveyor to provide
feedback on information obtained during survey
18
The Recommendation
19
•Survey team discussion– Evening following review
•Feedback to program director– Exit meeting with surveyor
•Morning after review– Between 07:30 – 07:45
– Survey team recommendation• Category of accreditation• Strengths & weaknesses
Categories of Accreditation
20
New terminology • Revised and approved by the Royal College, CFPC and
CMQ in June 2012.
Categories of Accreditation
21
Accredited program• Follow-up:
– Next regular survey – Progress report within 12-18 months (Accreditation
Committee)– Internal review within 24 months– External review within 24 months
Accredited program on notice of intent to withdraw accreditation
• Follow-up:– External review conducted within 24 months
Categories of AccreditationDefinitions
22
• Accredited program with follow-up at next regular survey
– Program demonstrates acceptable compliance with standards.
23
• Accredited program with follow-up by College-mandated internal review
– Major issues identified in more than one Standard– Internal review of program required and conducted by
University– Internal review due within 24 months
Categories of AccreditationDefinitions
24
• Accredited program with follow-up by external review
– Major issues identified in more than one Standard AND concerns -• are specialty-specific and best evaluated by a reviewer
from the discipline, OR• have been persistent, OR• are strongly influenced by non-educational issues and can
best be evaluated by a reviewer from outside the University
– External review conducted within 24 months– College appoints a 2-3 member review team – Same format as regular survey
Categories of AccreditationDefinitions
25
• Accredited program on notice of intent to withdraw accreditation
– Major and/or continuing non-compliance with one or more Standards which calls into question the educational environment and/or integrity of the program
– External review conducted by 3 people (2 specialists + 1 resident) within 24 months
– At the time of the review, the program will be required to show why accreditation should not be withdrawn.
Categories of AccreditationDefinitions
After the Survey
26
SURVEY TEAM
ROYAL COLLEGESPECIALTY COMMITTEE
UNIVERSITY
ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE
Repo
rts
Repo
rts
&
Resp
onse
s
Recommendation
Reports
Responses
Report &Response
The Accreditation Committee
27
•Chair + 16 members• Ex-officio voting members (6)
– Collège des médecins du Québec (1)– Medical Schools (2)– Resident Associations (2)– Regulatory Authorities (1)
•Observers (9)– Collège des médecins du Québec (1)– Resident Associations (2)– College of Family Physicians of Canada (1)– Regulatory Authorities (1)– Teaching Hospitals (1)– Resident Matching Service (1)– Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (2)
Information Available to the Accreditation Committee
28
•All pre-survey documentation available to surveyor
•Survey report•Program response•Specialty Committee recommendation•History of the program
29
•Decisions– Accreditation Committee meeting
• June 2013• Dean & postgraduate dean attend
– Sent to• University• Specialty Committee
•Appeal process is available
The Accreditation Committee
Preparing for the Survey Role of the Resident
• Complete the FMRQ questionnaire • Confidential, not given to survey team
•Meet together as a group to discuss the strengths & weaknesses of your program • 1 to 2 months before survey
•Obtain a copy of the pre-survey questionnaires (PSQ) and the previous survey report
• If you feel you need more time with surveyor, request it
•Be open and honest with surveyor• Comments in meetings are anonymous
30
Role of the Resident in the Accreditation Process
31
•Program Administration• Member of the Residency Program Committee• Must be elected• Communication to and from Residency Program Committee
• Residency programs• Evaluation of the program• Rotations, teachers, teaching
• Understand the Standards
General Standards of Accreditation
32
“A” Standards• Apply to University, specifically the PGME office
“B” Standards• Apply to EACH residency program• Updated January 2011
“B” Standards
33
Standards for EACH residency programB1 Administrative StructureB2 Goals & ObjectivesB3 Structure and Organization of the
ProgramB4 ResourcesB5 Clinical, Academic & Scholarly
Content of the ProgramB6 Assessment of Resident Performance
B1 – Administrative Structure
34
There must be an appropriate administrative structurefor each residency program.
• Program director• Time & support
• Residency Program Committee• Representative from each site and major
component• Resident member(s)
- Must include at least ONE elected resident• Meets regularly, four times a year
- Minutes
•Responsibilities of the Residency Program Committee• Selection, evaluation & promotion of residents• Ongoing review of program• Assessment of program / teachers / rotations• Research environment• Appeal mechanism• Career & stress counseling• Resident safety
35
B1 – Administrative Structure
B2 – Goals and Objectives
36
There must be a clearly worded statement outlining the goals of the residency program and the educational objectives of the
residents.
• Rotation-specific• Structure to reflect CanMEDS Roles• Circulated to residents & teaching staff• Used in planning and assessment of
residents
CanMEDS Roles
37
•Medical Expert•Communicator•Collaborator•Manager•Health Advocate•Scholar•Professional
B3 – Structure & Organization
38
There must be an organized program of rotations and other educational experiences, both mandatory and elective,
designed to fulfill the educational requirements and allow residents to achieve competence in the specialty.
• Include all components of specialty• Equal opportunity
• Increasing professional responsibility•Appropriate independence as residents
progress•Supervision•Call•Service / education balance•Educational environment
• Promote resident safety• Free from intimidation, harassment or abuse
39
B3 – Structure & Organization
B4 – Resources
40
There must be sufficient resources to provide the opportunity for all residents to achieve the educational objectives.
• Teaching faculty• Variety & number of patients• Physical and technical facilities• Inpatient, ambulatory, emergency, ICU• Organized• Supervised
B5 – Clinical, Academic & Scholarly Content of Program
41
There must be a clinical, academic and scholarly program that prepares residents to fulfill all the roles of the specialist.
• Organized academic program• Academic half-day, journal club
• Address the CanMEDS competencies• Attendance
• Staff, residents• Provide teaching
• Something more than observation and role modeling is expected
B6 – Assessment of Resident Performance
42
There must be mechanisms to ensure systematic assessment of each resident.
• Based on goals & objectives• Uses appropriate and varied assessment
methods• Feedback
• Formal, timely, appropriate• Face-to-face• Adequately documented
PilotAccreditation Process
Conducted in two separate visits • PGME and teaching sites – A Standards
– November 25-27, 2012• Residency programs – B Standards
– March 17-22, 2013
43
ALL residency programs• Complete PSQ• Undergo a review, either by
– On-site survey, or– PSQ/documentation review, and input from various
stakeholdersProcess varies depending on group• Mandated for on-site survey• Eligible for exemption from on-site survey• Selected for on-site survey
44
PilotAccreditation Process
Scheduled for On-site Reviewin March 2013
Criteria• Core specialties
– General Surgery, Internal Medicine, Obstetrics & Gynecology Pediatrics, Psychiatry
• Palliative Medicine– Conjoint Royal College/CFPC program
• Program Status– Not on full approval since last regular survey– New program which has not had a mandated internal review
conducted
45
Programs Mandated for On-site Survey
Process remains the same• PSQ Review
– Specialty Committee• On-site survey by surveyor• Survey team recommendation• Survey report• Specialty Committee• Final decision by Accreditation Committee
– Meeting in June 2013– Dean & postgraduate dean attend
46
Process for Programs Mandated for On-site Review
Criteria• Program on full approval since last regular on-site
survey
47
Programs Eligible forExemption from On-site Review
• PSQ and documentation review– Accreditation Committee reviewer– Specialty Committee
• Recommendations to exempt– Accreditation Committee reviewer– Specialty Committee– Postgraduate dean– Resident organization (FMRQ)
• Steering Committee (AC) Decision– Review of recommendations
•Exempted: on-site survey not required•Not exempted: program scheduled for on-site survey in March
– Selected program (random)– University notified in December 2012
48
Process for Programs Eligible for Exemption
Contact Information
ROYAL COLLEGE
Office of EducationMargaret KennedyAssistant DirectorAccreditation & LiaisonLise DupéréManager, Educational Standards UnitSylvie LavoieSurvey Coordinator
COLLÈGE DES MÉDECINS DU QUÉBEC
Direction des études médicalesDr. Anne-Marie MacLellanDirector
Marjolaine LamerCoordinatorMélanie CaronAccreditation Agent
49
Top Related