Log in

A Review of Continuous Quality Improvement Processes at Ten Medical Schools

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Liaison Committee on Medical Education now expects all allopathic medical schools to develop and adhere to a documentable continuous quality improvement (CQI) process. Medical schools must consider how to establish a defensible process that monitors compliance with accreditation standards between site visits. The purpose of this descriptive study is to detail how ten schools in the Association of American Medical Colleges’ (AAMC) Southern Group on Educational Affairs (SGEA) CQI Special Interest Group (SIG) are tackling practical issues of CQI development including establishing a CQI office, designating faculty and staff, charging a CQI committee, choosing software for data management, if schools are choosing formalized CQI models, and other considerations. The information presented is not meant to certify that any way is the correct way to manage CQI, but simply present some schools’ models. Future research should include defining commonalities of CQI models as well as seeking differences. Furthermore, what are components of CQI models that may affect accreditation compliance negatively? Are there “worst practices” to avoid? What LCME elements are most commonly identified for CQI, and what are the successes and struggles for addressing those elements? What are identifiable challenges relating to use of standard spreadsheet software and engaging information technology for support? How can students be more engaged and involved in the CQI process? Finally, how do these major shifts to a formalized CQI process impact the educational experience?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Buchanan HS. The quality movement in higher education in the United States. Health Libr Rev. 1996;12(3):141–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Roffe IM. Conceptual problems of continuous quality improvement and innovation in higher education. Qual Assur Educ. 1998;6(2):74–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684889810205723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Blouin D, Tekian A, Kamin C, Harris IB. The impact of accreditation on medical schools’ processes. Med Educ. 2018;52:182–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Liaison Committee on Medical Education [LCME]. (2014–2015). Institutional Setting 1 in Functions and structures of a medical school: Standards for accreditation of medical education programs leading to the MD degree. Retrieved winter 2014–2015.

  5. Liaison Committee on Medical Education [LCME]. (2017–2018). Strategic Planning and Continuous Quality Improvement (Element 1.1) in Functions and structures of a medical school: Standards for accreditation of medical education programs leading to the MD degree. Retrieved from http://lcme.org/publications/#Standards. Accessed 2 March 2018.

  6. Barzansky B, Hunt D, Moineau G, Ahn D, Lai CW, Humphrey H, et al. Continuous quality improvement in an accreditation system for undergraduate medical education: benefits and challenges. Med Teach. 2015;37(11):1032–8. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2015.1031735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Liaison Committee on Medical Education [LCME]. Implementing a system for monitoring performance in LCME Accreditation Standards. October 19, 2016. Retrieved from http://lcme.org/publications/#White-Papers. Accessed 2 March 2018.

  8. Blouin D, Tekian A. Accreditation of medical education programs: moving from student outcomes to continuous quality improvement measures. Acad Med. 2018;93(3):377–83. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Shroyer AL, Lu WH, Chandran L. Drivers of dashboard development (3-D): a curricular continuous quality improvement approach. Acad Med. 2016;91(4):517–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason S. Hedrick.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

None.

Disclaimer

None.

Previous Presentations

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hedrick, J.S., Cottrell, S., Stark, D. et al. A Review of Continuous Quality Improvement Processes at Ten Medical Schools. Med.Sci.Educ. 29, 285–290 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00694-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00694-5

Keywords

Navigation