The opinions of medical schools on social accountability; a qualitative study

Öz

Background: Within the complex interactions of preventive medicine and health care, it has been increasingly accepted that educational and research activities of physicians should meet individual and social expectations in frame of social accountability. In this study, the opinions of key people who have role in undergraduate medical education curriculum development were compiled, and their reflection on the curriculum development and evaluation processes were evaluated.

Methods: This is a qualitative study. In Istanbul, 11 medical schools (4 state medical schools, 7 private medical schools), which were graduated their students based on national core competencies, were selected. The contact information obtained from the web pages of medical schools. Semi-structured interviews were held face to face with faculty members who played an important role in medical education. The voice records of interviews were taken, and turned into text. Then, content analysis was done by two researchers. The themes determined as a result of the analysis were grouped and interpreted.

Results: The concepts of social accountability evoked in the participants were responsibility society, promise to society, and transparency. Institutional support, stakeholder engagement and policy continuity have been evaluated as the main results of the compiled opinions on the processes of development, implementation and evaluation of social accountability activities.

Conclusion: Key people made sense of the concept of social accountability around responsibilities to society. It was emphasized that sufficient time should be spent for understanding and discussion of social accountability in curriculum development activities. In addition, national consensus on social accountability would contribute to those processes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• social accountability
• social responsibility
• medical education
• qualilative research

Tıp fakültelerinin sosyal hesap verebilirliğe yönelik görüşleri; nitel bir çalışma

Öz

Amaç: Toplum sağlığını koruma, geliştirme ve hasta bakımının gittikçe artan karmaşık yapısı içinde bireysel ve toplumsal beklenti ve ihtiyaçları karşılayacak hekimlerin eğitim ve araştırma faaliyetlerinin sosyal hesap verilebilirlik yaklaşımıyla düzenlenmesi gün geçtikçe daha fazla kabul görmektedir. Bu çalışmada, tıp fakültelerinde eğitiminin planlanması ve yürütülmesinde rolü olan anahtar kişilerin sosyal hesap verebilirliğe yönelik görüşlerini derlenmiş, program geliştirme ve değerlendirme süreçlerine yansıması değerlendirilmiştir.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Niteliksel yöntemle tasarlanan araştırmada İstanbul’da Ulusal Çekirdek Eğitim Programı -2014’te (UÇEP-2014) belirtilen yeterliklerle uyumlu mezuniyet öncesi tıp eğitimi programlarından mezun vermiş 4’ü devlet ve 7’si vakıf/özel üniversitesi olmak üzere belirlenen toplam 11 tıp fakültesinin web sayfalarından elde edilen iletişim bilgileri üzerinden ulaşılan ve çalışmaya katılmayı kabul eden, eğitimin planlamasında ve sürdürülmesinde rol alan öğretim üyeleri ile yarı yapılandırılmış yüz yüze görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Görüşmeler sesli olarak kaydedildikten sonra metin halinde çözümlenmiş ve iki araştırmacı tarafından içerik analizi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Analizi sonucunda belirlenen temalar araştırmacılar tarafından gruplandırılarak yorumlanmıştır.

Bulgular: Sosyal hesap verebilirlik kavramını çoğu katılımcı topluma karşı sorumluluk, topluma verilen söz ve şeffaflık olarak tanımlamıştır. Tıp fakültelerinde sosyal hesap verebilirliğe yönelik faaliyetlerin yapılandırılması, uygulanması, değerlendirilmesi ve geliştirilmesi süreçlerinde; kurum yönetiminin desteği, ilgili tüm paydaşların süreçte rol alması ve işbirliği ile kurumsal politikaların sürekliliğinin önemi değerlendirmeler sonucunda belirlenen temel görüşlerdi.

Sonuç: Tıp eğitiminde sorumluluğu olan anahtar kişilerin sosyal hesap verebilirlik kavramını topluma karşı sorumluluk çevresinde anlamlandırdığı görülmektedir. Katılımcılar sosyal hesap verebilirlik kavramı ve eğitime yansıtılması çalışmalarının kurumsal olarak tartışılması, anlaşılmasına ve özümsenmesine yönelik yeterli zaman ve uygun aktivitelerin yaratılması gerektiğine, yanı sıra ulusal görüş birliği yaratacak çalışmaların da bu sürece yapacağı katkıya vurgu yapmıştır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• sosyal hesap verebilirlik
• sosyal sorumluluk
• tıp eğitimi
• nitel araştırma

Kaynakça

1. Rourke J. AM Last Page: Social accountability of medical schools. Acad Med. 2013;88:430.
2. Boelen C. Towards unity for health: Challenges and opportunities for partnership in health development. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2000. Accessed March 22, 2020. Available from: http:// www.who.int/hrh/documents/en/TUFH_ challenges.pdf.
3. Boelen C, Heck JE. Defining and measuring the social accountability of medical schools. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2015. WHO/HRH/95.7. Accessed March 14, 2020. Available from: http:// apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/59441/1/ WHO_HRH_95.7.pdf.
4. Health Canada Steering Committee on Social Accountability of Medical Schools. Social Accountability: A Vision for Canadian Medical Schools. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Health Canada; 2001.
5. Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada. The Future of Medical Education in Canada (FMEC): A collective vision for MD education. Accessed March 14, Available from: 2020.https://afmc.ca/pdf/fmec/FMEC- MD-2010.pdf.
6. Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada. FMEC MD 2015: Five years of innovations at Canadian medical schools. Accessed March 14, 2020. Available from: https://afmc.ca/pdf/fmec/FMEC-MD-2015. pdf.
7. Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada. A collective vision for postgraduate medical education in Canada. https://www. afmc.ca/future-of-medical-education- in-canada/postgraduate-project/pdf/ FMEC_PG_Final-Report_EN.pdf. Published 2012. Accessed March 27, 2020.
8. Busing N, Harris K, MacLellan AM, et al. The future of postgraduate medical education in Canada. Acad Med. 2015;90:1258–63.

9. Committee on Accreditation of Canadian Medical Schools. Committee on Accreditation of Canadian Medical Schools website. Accessed March 14, 2020. Available from: https://cacms-cafmc.ca/.
10. Global Consensus for Social Accountability of Medical Schools (GCSA)- 2010. East London, South Africa. Accessed March 14, 2020. Available from: http://www.health- socialaccountability.org.
11. The Network: Towards Unity for Health. World Summit on Social Accountability: Tunis Declaration. Accessed March 14, 2020. Available from: http://thenetworktufh. org/2017conference/. Published 2017.
12. THEnet. THEnet website. Accessed March 14, 2020. Available from: https:// thenetcommunity.org/.
13. Boelen C, Pearson D, Kaufman A, et al. Producing a socially accountable medical school: AMEE guide no. 109. Med Teach. 2016;38:1078–91.
14. Harden R. Excellence in medical education— Can it be assessed? Asia Pacific Scholar TAPS. 2018;3:1–5.
15. Hunt D, Klamen D, Harden RM, Ali F. The ASPIRE-to-Excellence Program: A global effort to improve the quality of medical education. Acad Med. 2018;93:1117–19.
16. Association for Medical Education in Europe. ASPIRE-to-Excellence Award. Accessed March 14, 2020. Available from: https://amee. org/awards-prizes/aspire-award.
17. ASPIRE. ASPIRE website. Accessed March 14, 2020. Available from: http://www.aspire- to-excellence.org/.
18. Mezuniyet Öncesi Tıp Eğitimi Ulusal Standartları-2020. Accessed March 25, 2020. Available from: http://www.tepdad.org.tr/belgeler.
19. Mezuniyet Öncesi Tıp Eğitimi - Ulusal Çekirdek Eğitim Programı 2014. Accessed March 20, 2020. Available from: https://www.yok.gov.tr/kurumsal/idari-birimler/egitim-ogretim-dairesi/ulusal-cekirdek-egitimi-programlari
20. TEPDAD. 2019. Türkiye Sosyal Güvenilir (Hesap Verebilir) Tıp Fakültesi Belirleyicileri Ulusal Belgesi. Erişim tarihi: 20 Mayıs 2020. Erişim adresi: http://tepdad.org.tr/uploads/files/Belgeler%20ve%20formlar/TEPDAD_Sosyal_Guvenilirlik.PDF
21. Preston R, Larkins S, Taylor J, et al. From personal to global: Understandings of social accountability from stakeholders at four medical schools. Med Teach. 2016;38(10):1–8.
22. Clithero-Eridon A, Albright D, Ross A. Conceptualising social accountability as an attribute of medical education. Afr J Prm Health Care Fam Med. 2020;12(1):a2213.
23. Abdolmaleki MR, Yazdani S, Momeni S, Momtazmanesh N. Social accountable medical education: a concept analysis. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2017;5(3):108-115.
24. Fox JA. Social Accountability: What Does the Evidence Really Say? World Development. 2015;72:346-61.
25. Cleland JA, Nicholson S, Kelly N, Mandy Moffat. Taking context seriously: explaining widening access policy enactments in UK medical schools. Medical Education 2015: 49: 25–35.
26. Torjman S. 2005. ‘‘What is Policy?’’ Ottawa: Caledon Institute of Social Policy. Accessed 20 March 2020. Available from: http://www.caledoninst.org/.
27. Bland CJ, Starnaman S, Wersal L, Moorehead-Rosenberg L, Zonia S, Henry R. 2000. Curricular change in medical schools: how to succeed. Acad Med. 75:575–594.
28. Ball S.J, Maguire M, Braun A, Hoskins K. Policy subjects and policy actors in schools: some necessary but insufficient analyses. Discourse Stud Cult Politics Educ. 2011;32(4):611–24.
29. Taber S, Frank J.R, Harris K.A. Identifying the policy implications of competency-based education. Medical Teacher. 2010;32: 687–91.
30. Nousiainen M.T, Caverzagie K.J, Ferguson P.C, Jason R. Frank. Implementing competency-based medical education: What changes in curricular structure and processes are needed?. MEDICAL TEACHER, 2017;39(6):594–598.
31. Malik A.S, Malik R.H. Twelve tips for developing an integrated curriculum. Medical Teacher. 2011;33: 99–104.
32. Ankel F. 2013. “Program Milestones: managing autonomy, context and complexity to build an expert program”. Presentation at the 2013 International Conference on Residency Education, Calgary, AB. September 26–26. Ottawa: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Accessed March 24 2020. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3yA2e-oJNo
33. RJ Campbell. Change Management in Health Care. The Health Care Manager, 2008;27(1):23–39.
34. JM Genn. AMEE Guide 23-Part 2. Curriculum, environment, climate, quality and change in medical education–a unifying perspective. Medical Teacher, 2001;23(5):445-54.
35. R Gale, J Grant. AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 10: Managing change in a medical context: Guidelines for action, Medical Teacher, 1997;19(4): 239-249.
36. JP. Kotter. It All Starts with a Sense of Urgency: Laying the groundwork for change. Harvard Business Press Boston, Massachusetts, 2008: 1-17.
37. H Loeser, P O’Sullivan, DM. Irby. Leadership Lessons from Curricular Change at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine. Acad Med. 2007;82:324–30.
38. John P. Kotter. Change Management: Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail?. in HBR’s 10 Must Reads. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. 2011:1-19.