The impact of accreditation on continuous quality improvement process in undergraduate medical education programs: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Accreditation in medical education has existed for more than 100 years, yet the impact of accreditation remains inconclusive. Some studies have shown the effects of accreditation on student outcomes and educational processes at medical schools. However, evidence showing the impact of accreditation on continuous quality improvement of undergraduate medical education programs is still in its infancy. This scoping review explores the impact of accreditation on continuous quality improvement (CQI). Methods: This scoping review followed the methodology of the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and the Meta-Analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist outlined by Arksey and O'Malley (2005). Databases, including PubMed, Medline, ERIC, CINHAL, and Google Scholar, were searched to find articles from 2000 to 2022 related to the accreditation of undergraduate medical education programs and continuous quality improvement. Results: A total of 35 full-text articles were reviewed, and ten articles met our inclusion criteria. The review of the full-text articles yielded four themes: Accreditation and its standards in general, Accreditation and its impact on student outcomes, Accreditation and its impact on medical school's educational processes, Accreditation and CQI. However, the literature evidence suggesting the impact of accreditation on CQI is minimal. The quality assurance approach is based on meeting the standards of accreditation. The quality improvement approach is based on striving for excellence. Literature suggests a requirement to move from student outcomes to CQI measures. CQI requires everyone in the organization to take responsibility and accountability, considering quality as the result of every single step or process and leaders supporting improvements in data collection and data analysis for quality improvement. Conclusions: The literature on accreditation and CQI are limited in number. More research studies are required to enhance undergraduate medical education accreditation practices' value to medical students, educators, academic leaders, programs, and the public. It was recommended that medical schools embrace the culture and vision perpetuated by the CQI process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.052 | 0.208 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".