Editor’s Note: The UNMC College of Medicine is currently in the process of seeking reaccreditation through the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME). The LCME site visit is scheduled for Oct. 6-9, 2013. During the accreditation process, Hugh Stoddard, Ph.D., director and special assistant dean for medical education, will provide a monthly update on accreditation. Dr. Stoddard is self-study coordinator for the College of Medicine.
Question of the Month:
Q: Why does LCME accreditation have to be such a big production? I don’t have much involvement in teaching medical students, so what does my participation add to this process? Wouldn’t it be easier and more efficient if the few people who are closely involved in medical student education would just write the report?
A: One of the characteristics that the site visitors and the LCME consider in their accreditation decision is their perception of how important education is to the institution. The LCME expects that all faculty members at the institution will assume accountability for the medical education program. One metric for faculty involvement is their participation in evaluation of that program and their commitment to improving it through the LCME process.
For example, the site visit team is instructed to include the following in their report to the LCME (emphasis added):
Comment on the self-study in terms of the degree of participation by medical school faculty, administrators, students, and others; the comprehensiveness and depth of analyses; and the organization and quality of the conclusions and recommendations. Note the degree to which the survey team’s major conclusions are consistent with those of the program’s self-study. Include in the appendix the listing of members of the various self-study task forces and committees and a copy of the overall or executive summary of the self-study findings (not the complete self-study report).
Because the goal of the whole accreditation process is to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the M.D. program, the self-study and the site visit report seek to have input from as many perspectives as possible. This includes faculty members who are not directly related to the M.D. program but who do, nonetheless, constitute the educational environment of the institution. If we failed to critique the program from every possible perspective, then it would be difficult to reach valid conclusions. One method to help ensure that all possible perspectives are considered in our evaluation is by including the widest variety of faculty members possible on the various self-study sub-committees and the Self-Study Task Force.
Last month’s InterCOM included a list of all the faculty members and students who are directly participating in the self-study process. These individuals were assembled to provide the broadest possible representation of academic departments, academic ranks, lengths of service, and demographic characteristics. In all, 113 different people are directly involved in reading and evaluating the database information and contributing to the writing of the self-study.