Protecting the Public: Is It Time for a Paradigm Shift in Expected Practice Standards?

Tamblyn, Robyn

doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1644-6

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite calls in the literature to better utilize open access data collected by governments to improve medical training, schools struggle to make these links (Triola et al, 2018 ; Chahine et al, 2018 ; Dauphinee, 2012 ). Few seminal population-based outcome studies have examined the relationship between health professions training and health outcomes (Tamblyn, 2011 ; Wenghofer et al, 2009 ; Kawasumi et al, 2011 ; Cadieux et al, 2007 ; Norcini et al, 2000 ; Norcini et al, 2014 ; Asch et al, 2009 ; Asch et al, 2014 ; Epstein et al, 2013 , 2016 ; Teodorczuk et al, 2017 ). However, this paper provides an example of how schools can begin to utilize open access, secondary data to create a reliable health indices as a means to empirically identify regional population health needs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity evidence and psychometric evaluation of a socially accountable health index for health professions schools

Barber

Vleuten

Chahine

2023

Adv in Health Sci Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an expectation that health professions schools respond to priority societal health needs. This expectation is largely based on the underlying assumption that schools are aware of the priority needs in their communities. This paper demonstrates how open-access, pan-national health data can be used to create a reliable health index to assist schools in identifying societal needs and advance social accountability in health professions education. Using open-access data, a psychometric evaluation was conducted to examine the reliability and validity of the Canadian Health Indicators Framework (CHIF) conceptual model. A non-linear confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on 67 health indicators, at the health-region level (n = 97) was used to assess the model fit of the hypothesized 10-factor model. Reliability analysis using McDonald’s Omega were conducted, followed by Pearson’s correlation coefficients. Findings from the non-linear CFA rejected the original conceptual model structure of the CHIF. Exploratory post hoc analyses were conducted using modification indices and parameter constraints to improve model fit. A final 5-factor multidimensional model demonstrated superior fit, reducing the number of indicators from 67 to 32. The 5-factors included: Health Conditions (8-indicators); Health Functions (6-indicators); Deaths (5-indicators); Non-Medical Health Determinants (7-indicators); and Community & Health System Characteristics (6-indicators). All factor loadings were statistically significant (p < 0.001) and demonstrated excellent internal consistency ($$\upomega$$ ω >0.95). Many schools struggle to identify and measure socially accountable outcomes. The process highlighted in this paper and the indices developed serve as starting points to allow schools to leverage open-access data as an initial step in identifying societal needs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity evidence and psychometric evaluation of a socially accountable health index for health professions schools

Barber

Vleuten

Chahine

2023

Adv in Health Sci Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, how can the postgraduate clinical and continuing professional development communities and the regulatory communities focus on outcomes of care without considering their links to educational activities and intermediate education outputs? More outputs do not necessarily improve health outcomes and ill‐advised teaching programmes may well generate more cost and not address great variation in care 27 …”

Section: The Need For Clarity In Defining the Accountability Of Educamentioning

confidence: 99%

Educators must consider patient outcomes when assessing the impact of clinical training

Dauphinee

2011

Medical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If the ultimate impacts of practices and policies in health professions education are not considered, how will we know if our education structures, processes and outcomes are optimal? This essay examines this question from the perspectives of three related issues. The first refers to the need for a common framework if the outcomes of patient and community care are to be evaluated properly. The second perspective refers to whether it is feasible to consider both patient-based outcomes and patient-reported outcomes in assessing the impact of education programmes, especially at more advanced levels of training. The third perspective concerns the challenges and limitations that may be encountered in focusing on patient outcomes as a measure of the impact of education. The concluding discussion suggests how the results of such longer-term impact studies should be interpreted as key validity checks on the quality and effectiveness of medical education and clinical education if we are to address the validity and efficiency of outcomes used in education and training.

show abstract

Protecting the Public: Is It Time for a Paradigm Shift in Expected Practice Standards?

Cited by 2 publications

References 6 publications

Validity evidence and psychometric evaluation of a socially accountable health index for health professions schools

Validity evidence and psychometric evaluation of a socially accountable health index for health professions schools

Educators must consider patient outcomes when assessing the impact of clinical training

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About