Bridging health equity and quality improvement in medical education

Abstract

Sukhera suggests that a deeper understanding of how QI education and health equity are interconnected requires critical reflection on why QI was developed, by whom, and for what purpose.

Faster, higher, stronger – together? A bibliometric analysis of author distribution in top medical education journals

“…[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] There are some empirical studies examining various aspects of representation within medical education, with recent attention given to gender, sociocultural and racial equity within academic medicine's leadership, student body and curricula. [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] There is also growing documentation of the paucity of published voices from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) and non-English speaking scholars in medical education journals that position their reach as international. [48][49][50][51][52] This parallels the relative absence of authors from LMIC and non-English speaking countries in leading academic journals in many other areas of academia, including health and education.…”

“…Many are written as commentaries and perspectives pieces, providing reflections on personal experiences and theoretical explorations of ways that dominant approaches (generally white and EuroAmerican centric) constrain and limit the field 23–31. There are some empirical studies examining various aspects of representation within medical education, with recent attention given to gender, sociocultural and racial equity within academic medicine’s leadership, student body and curricula 32–47. There is also growing documentation of the paucity of published voices from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) and non-English speaking scholars in medical education journals that position their reach as international 48–52.…”

Quality improvement as a statement of values

“…It is that spirit of continuous quality improvement that serves as the inspiration behind this year's State of the Science issue in Medical Education . Spearheaded by Janet Grant, Danette McKinley and Jack Boulet, 8 the papers address philosophical questions pertaining to how quality is defined 9,10 as well as practical questions pertaining to what role regulation plays in quality improvement, 11,12 how particular aspects of curriculum and competence might strive towards enhancement 13,14 and what quality improvement looks like when considering issues of equity, diversity and inclusion 15,16 …”

“…Spearheaded by Janet Grant, Danette McKinley and Jack Boulet, 8 the papers address philosophical questions pertaining to how quality is defined 9,10 as well as practical questions pertaining to what role regulation plays in quality improvement, 11,12 how particular aspects of curriculum and competence might strive towards enhancement 13,14 and what quality improvement looks like when considering issues of equity, diversity and inclusion. 15,16 This, of course, is just a sampling of ways in which the overarching principle of quality improvement 'sends a message about values', none of which should be treated as the final word on the matters addressed; such a mentality, after all, would not exactly align with the notion of continuous quality improvement. Each paper, however, offers valuable reminders of the gains that can be made when we think in terms of how to collectively get better rather than how to justify the status quo.…”