Skip to main content

Responsiveness to societal needs in postgraduate medical education: the role of accreditation

Abstract

Background

Social accountability in medical education has been defined as an obligation to direct education, research, and service activities toward the most important health concerns of communities, regions, and nations. Drawing from the results of a summit of international experts on postgraduate medical education and accreditation, we highlight the importance of local contexts in meeting societal aims and present different approaches to ensuring societal input into medical education systems around the globe.

Main text

We describe four priorities for social responsiveness that postgraduate medical education needs to address in local and regional contexts: (1) optimizing the size, specialty mix, and geographic distribution of the physician workforce; (2) ensuring graduates’ competence in meeting societal goals for health care, population health, and sustainability; (3) promoting a diverse physician workforce and equitable access to graduate medical education; and (4) ensuring a safe and supportive learning environment that promotes the professional development of physicians along with safe and effective patient care in settings where trainees participate in care. We relate these priorities to the values proposed by the World Health Organization for social accountability: relevance, quality, cost-effectiveness, and equity; discuss accreditation as a lever for change; and describe existing and evolving efforts to make postgraduate medical education socially responsive.

Conclusion

Achieving social responsiveness in a competency-based postgraduate medical education system requires accrediting organizations to ensure that learning emphasizes relevant competencies in postgraduate curricula and educational experiences, and that graduates possess desired attributes. At the same time, institutions sponsoring graduate medical education need to provide safe and effective patient care, along with a supportive learning and working environment.

Background

The medical education enterprise is accountable to the citizens who will be served by the physician workforce it produces [1]. An appropriately sized, skilled, and distributed physician workforce is critical to the health of any nation. The composition and skill set of this workforce is determined in significant part during the postgraduate phase of medical education. Three decades ago, the World Federation for Medical Education (WFME) declared that the aim of medical education is to produce physicians who will promote the health of all people, and noted that this aim was not being met despite progress in medical science [2]. In 1995, the World Health Organization (WHO) defined the social accountability of medical schools as “the obligation to direct their education, research and service activities towards addressing the priority health concerns of the community, region, and/or nation they serve” [3]. Medical education and accreditation experts discussed the importance of social accountability at the 2013 World Summit on Outcomes-Based Accreditation.Footnote 1 Participants at the summit discussed the role of accreditation in a wide range of domains, focusing on the accreditation systems in different nations, including the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands. In this article, we propose “social responsiveness” as a more actionable term for postgraduate medical education, given its relatively decentralized operation in most nations’ health care systems. Social responsiveness has been defined as the “engagement in a course of actions responding to social needs” [4]. Inherent in the WFME and WHO definitions of social accountability are expectations for the competencies of the physician workforce that the medical education system produces. Yet the general nature of the definitions makes it challenging to translate them into actionable recommendations for postgraduate medical education programs and institutions. The term “responsiveness” is congruent with the WHO expectation that health care priorities should be collectively identified by stakeholders, including governments, health care organizations, educators, professionals, and members of the public [3].

Main text

Social responsiveness in postgraduate medical education

In contrast to earlier commentators who have discussed social accountability expectations for medical schools, we focus on physician education after medical school and describe four priorities for social responsiveness in the postgraduate medical education system. The first pertains to ensuring that the size, specialty mix, and geographic distribution of the physician workforce is adequate to meet patient and population health needs [5, 6]. The second priority pertains to the skill set necessary to enable the profession to meet societal goals for access, population health, and the stewardship of resources [7] while addressing health disparities [8] and the social determinants of health [9] in increasingly diverse populations. The third priority relates to enhancing the diversity and inclusiveness of the learning environment; this includes increasing the representation of racial, ethnic, and other minorities in the physician workforce and promoting an inclusive and supportive environment for all trainees. The fourth priority pertains to ensuring a safe, respectful, and supportive learning and working environment that facilitates the professional development of physicians while providing safe and effective care in settings where trainees learn and participate in care. Detail on the four priorities is shown in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4. Three of the priorities relate to the future physician workforce, and one to the learning environment that provides the context for the professional socialization of the future physician workforce. These priorities complement Boelen’s social obligation scale and facilitate its operationalization [4].

Table 1 Priority 1: Appropriate size, specialty mix, and geographic composition of the physician workforce
Table 2 Priority 2: Physician competencies for meeting societal goals for health care and population health at a sustainable cost
Table 3 Priority 3: Diversity of physician workforce, and diversity and inclusiveness in the learning and working environment
Table 4 Priority 4: A safe, supportive learning environment that facilitates the co-production of professional development for physicians and safe and effective patient care

Approaches to meeting social responsiveness aims

In Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4, we summarize interventions at the level of the system (government entities and accreditors), the institution and program, and the individual to address the four priorities. This highlights accreditation as a lever for social accountability in many domains. We relate the social responsiveness priorities we identified to four values for social accountability discussed in a 1995 WHO document: (1) relevance (the degree to which the aims of medical education are congruent with the needs and aims of the communities it serves); (2) quality (the degree to which medical education contributes to high-quality, effective care, both in the settings where trainees participate in care and in graduates’ future practice); (3) cost-effectiveness (the extent to which medical education contributes to cost-effective care); and (4) equity (making health care available to all, and making medical education accessible to women and members of racial, ethnic, and other minorities) [3].

The four social responsiveness priorities shown in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 are not new, and many of the aspects summarized there are congruent with a consensus document on the social responsibility of medical schools [26]. Yet, despite a general appreciation and considerable agreement on dimensions of social accountability, few studies have broadly addressed social responsiveness in postgraduate medical education. Work to date has focused on efforts to address a single aspect, such as optimizing the size and distribution of the physician workforce [27], enhanced funding for primary care and rural training programs [28], and service learning projects to expose learners to settings that provide care for underserved patients [29]. Efforts to enhance the postgraduate learning and working environment have focused on trainee work hour limits [30, 31] and interventions to promote a safe, effective, and supportive learning environment [12].

Suggestions for broader interventions have generally been made at the conceptual level, such as proposals in the United States to reallocate funding for graduate medical education to incentivize programs that meet social accountability aims [32], and some commentators have recommended metrics to be used in the allocation of funds [33]. In Canada, the report of a consortium of organizations that addressed the future of postgraduate medical education emphasized the social accountability of physicians to the public they serve [34]. At the undergraduate medical education level, a US proposal for a “social mission” metric assessed the output of medical schools as the percentage of graduates who practice primary care, work in areas affected by a shortage of health professionals, and are members of under-represented minorities; their ranking showed that medical schools vary substantially in their contribution to these social missions [35].

Meeting goals for social responsiveness in a competency-based postgraduate medical education system requires accrediting organizations to ensure that learning emphasizes relevant competencies, and that graduates possess the attributes to meet societal goals for health care access, population health, improved patient experience of care, and stewardship of finite health care resources [8]. In the United States, accreditation standards that will become effective in 2019 call for postgraduate medical education programs to use a “deliberate design” approach to set aims relevant to the “needs of the communities they serve, within the overall mission of their sponsoring institution, and the capabilities of physicians they intend to graduate” [36]. The new standards also include an expectation that workforce diversity be considered in program evaluation and improvement [20]. Standards like these will increase the ability of postgraduate medical education to influence change that allows the physician education system to better meet societal needs.

Overcoming challenges to meeting societal expectations

Strategies to improve the social accountability of postgraduate medical education can be impeded by time constraints, competition with other curricular components, financial limitations, and institutional resistance. The promotion of social accountability through accreditation will need to be sensitive to the fact that accredited programs and sponsoring institutions are complex adaptive systems [37] influenced by the environments in which they operate. This constrains their ability to meet the range of potentially competing demands that arise from oversight organizations and the varying interests and foci within the medical education community. For example, in the Netherlands, competing perspectives with regard to accountability, educational focus, trust, role modelling, and work-life balance emerged in discussions about the future of the nation’s postgraduate medical education system [38].

There are additional challenges with regard to efforts to optimize the size and mix of the physician workforce (Table 1) in largely market-based systems such as the United States and, to a lesser degree, Canada. Accreditation cannot be used as a direct lever, as accreditors generally are enjoined from using workforce adequacy determinations in accreditation decisions [39]. In addition, while formal curricula and learning experiences can promote generalist practice and care of underserved populations, efforts to increase the supply of physicians for generalist practice and care in these populations need to address the “hidden curriculum” [40] in medical education, including the disparagement of generalist specialties [41] and the financial [42] and societal [41] reward structure for these highly needed specialties.

Globally, there are concerns with the “brain drain” that results from the migration of physicians to nations with greater freedom, higher reimbursement, and better quality of life, or to address local physician shortages [43]. In 2011, the WHO instituted a Global Code of Practice on the International Recruitment of Health Personnel, in recognition of the fact that the out-migration of physicians may hurt nations that have a high disease burden and already face shortages in their health workforce [14]. Efforts to address physician shortages in Australia and New Zealand have suggested that aligning elements of education and health systems with patient care needs is more effective than “importing” physicians [44], and in the United Arab Emirates there are efforts to train Emirati nationals to make up the next generation of physicians to serve the nation and region [45].

Addressing societal needs and expectations in postgraduate medical education is an area for additional work, including research on effective approaches and outreach to stakeholders, exploring successes and challenges, and gathering and disseminating information on effective practices for adoption or adaptation.

Conclusion

Societal responsiveness in postgraduate medical education can be achieved through a range of approaches at the system, institution, program, and individual levels. Accreditation has the potential to be effective across different national contexts and across the various dimensions of social responsiveness. A key observation is that meeting social responsiveness in a competency-based postgraduate medical education system requires accrediting organizations to ensure that learning emphasizes relevant competencies, and that graduates possess desired attributes. At the same time, there is a role for institutions that sponsor graduate medical education to provide safe and effective patient care in a supportive, humanistic learning and working environment.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Notes

  1. 1.

    This discussion, held at the 2013 World Summit on Outcomes-Based Accreditation in Calgary, Alberta, in conjunction with the International Conference on Residency Education, included representation across the continuum of medical education (undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuous professional development) and from a number of nations. The participants, who represented a variety of roles in medical education and accreditation, included current and former program directors and deans, senior administrators, and accreditors.

Abbreviations

WFME:

World Federation for Medical Education

WHO:

World Health Organization

References

  1. 1.

    World Health Organization. A universal truth: no health without a workforce. Third global forum on human resources for health report. Geneva: WHO; 2013. www.who.int/workforcealliance/knowledge/resources/hrhreport2013/en/ Accessed 27 Dec 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    World Federation for Medical Education. Edinburgh declaration on medical education. 1988. Available from: http://wfme.org/publications/the-edinburgh-declaration/ Accessed 27 Dec 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Boelen C, Heck JE. Division of development of human resources for health, World Health Organization. Defining and measuring the social accountability of medical schools. WHO/HRH/95.7. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1995. p. 3. Available from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1995/WHO_HRH_95.7.pdf Accessed 3 Mar 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Boelen C, Woollard R. Social accountability: the extra leap to excellence for educational institutions. Med Teach. 2011;33(8):614–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Institute of Medicine (IOM). Graduate medical education that meets the nation’s health needs. 2014. Available from: www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2014/Graduate-Medical-Education-That-Meets-the-Nations-Health-Needs.aspx Accessed 3 Mar 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Progovac AM, Cook BL, Mullin BO, McDowell A, Sanchez RMJ, Wang Y, et al. Identifying gender minority patients’ health and health care needs in administrative claims data. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018;37(3):413–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. The triple aim: care, health, and cost. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(3):759–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Casey SD, Mumma BE. Sex, race, and insurance status differences in hospital treatment and outcomes following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2018;126:125–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Pool MS, Agyemang CO, Smalbrugge M. interventions to improve social determinants of health among elderly ethnic minority groups: a review. Eur J Pub Health. 2017;27(6):1048–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    World Health Organization. WHO global code of practice on the international recruitment of health personnel. Geneva: WHO; 2010. Available from: www.who.int/hrh/resources/code_implementation/en/ Accessed 18 Jan 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bagian JP, Weiss KB. CLER evaluation committee. The overarching themes from the CLER National report of findings 2016. J Grad Med Educ. 2016;8(2 Suppl 1):21–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kanter SL. On physician advocacy. Acad Med. 2011;86(9):1059–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Meili R, Ganem-Cuenca A, Leung JW, Zaleschuk D. The CARE model of social accountability: promoting cultural change. Acad Med. 2011;86(9):1114–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Welch VA, Petticrew M, O’Neill J, Waters E, Armstrong R, Bhutta ZA, et al. Health equity: evidence synthesis and knowledge translation methods. Syst Rev. 2013;2:43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Hasnain M, Massengale L, Dykens A, Figueroa E. Health disparities training in residency programs in the United States. Fam Med. 2014;46(3):186–91.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Jernigan VB, Hearod JB, Tran K, Norris KC, Buchwald D. An examination of cultural competence training in US medical education guided by the tool for assessing cultural competence training. J Health Dispar Res Pract. 2016;9(3):150–67.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Horwitz LI, Masica AL, Auerbach AD. Introducing choosing wisely®: next steps in improving healthcare value. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(3):187–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Mensah MO, Sommers BD. The policy argument for healthcare workforce diversity. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(11):1369–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Garces LM, Mickey-Pabello D. Racial diversity in the medical profession: the impact of affirmative action bans on underrepresented student of color matriculation in medical schools. J High Educ. 2015;86(2):264–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Draft common program requirements (residency), sections 1–V. draft released for public comment 2018 Feb 6. Chicago: ACGME; 2018. Available from: www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PFAssets/ReviewandComment/CPR-Residency-2018-02-06-R&C.pdf Accessed 2 April 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Moynahan KF. The current use of United States medical licensing examination step 1 scores: holistic admissions and student well-being are in the balance. Acad Med. 2017;93(7):963–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Truong M, Paradies Y, Priest N. Interventions to improve cultural competency in healthcare: a systematic review of reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Rodriguez JE, Campbell KM, Fogarty JP, Williams RL. Underrepresented minority faculty in academic medicine: a systematic review of URM faculty development. Fam Med. 2014;46(2):100–4.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Ey S, Moffit M, Kinzie JM, Brunett PH. Feasibility of a comprehensive wellness and suicide prevention program: a decade of caring for physicians in training and practice. J Grad Med Educ. 2016;8(5):747–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Hu YY, Fix ML, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Greenberg CC, Weissman JS, Shapiro J. Physicians’ needs in coping with emotional stressors: the case for peer support. Arch Surg. 2012;147(3):212–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Woollard B, Boelen C. Seeking impact of medical schools on health: meeting the challenges of social accountability. Med Educ. 2012;46(1):21–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Salsberg ES. Is the physician shortage real? Implications for the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine Committee on the governance and financing of graduate medical education. Acad Med. 2015;90(9):1210–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Krist AH, Johnson RE, Callahan D, Woolf SH, Marsland D. Title VII funding and physician practice in rural or low-income areas. J Rural Health. 2005;21(1):3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Petrany SM, Gress T, Poole D. A free clinic continuity experience during residency is associated with practice in underserved areas. J Grad Med Educ. 2017;9(5):595–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Temple J. Resident duty hours around the globe: where are we now? BMC Med Educ. 2014;14(Suppl 1):S8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Philibert I, Nasca T, Brigham T, Shapiro J. Duty-hour limits and patient care and resident outcomes: can high-quality studies offer insight into complex relationships? Annu Rev Med. 2013;64:467–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Eden J, Berwick D, Wilensky G, editors. Graduate medical education that meets the nation’s health needs. Washington (DC): The National Academies Press; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Caverzagie KJ, Lane SW, Sharma N, Donnelly J, Jaeger JR, Laird-Fick H, et al. Proposed performance-based metrics for the future funding of graduate medical education: starting the conversation. Acad Med. 2017;93(7):1002–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Busing N, Harris K, MacLellan AM, Moineau G, Oandasan I, Rourke J, et al. The future of postgraduate medical education in Canada. Acad Med. 2015;90(9):1258–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Mullan F, Chen C, Petterson S, Kolsky G, Spagnola M. The social mission of medical education: ranking the schools. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(12):804–11 Erratum in: Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(3):212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Nasca TJ, Philibert I, Brigham T, Flynn TC. The next GME accreditation system¬ – rationale and benefits. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(11):1051–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Holland JH. Studying complex adaptive systems. J Syst Sci Complex. 2006;19(1):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Wallenburg I, van Exel J, Stolk E, Scheele F, de Bont A, Meurs P. Between trust and accountability: different perspectives on the modernization of postgraduate medical training in the Netherlands. Acad Med. 2010;85(6):1082–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Nasca TJ, Carlson D. Graduate medical education specialty mix and geographic residency program maldistribution: is there a role for the ACGME? AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(3):258–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Woloschuk W, Wright B, McLaughlin K. Debiasing the hidden curriculum: academic equality among medical specialties. Can Fam Physician. 2011;57(1):e26–30.

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Brooks JV. Hostility during training: historical roots of primary care disparagement. Ann Fam Med. 2016;14(5):446–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Gagné R, Léger PT. Determinants of physicians’ decisions to specialize. Health Econ. 2005;14(7):721–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Aluttis C, Bishaw T, Frank MW. The workforce for health in a globalized context – global shortages and international migration. Glob Health Action. 2014;7:23611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Gorman DF. brooks PM. On solutions to the shortage of doctors in Australia and New Zealand. Med J Aust. 2009;190(3):152–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Abdel-Razig S, Alameri H. Restructuring graduate medical education to meet the health care needs of Emirati citizens. J Grad Med Educ. 2013;5(2):195–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the members of the International Health Professions Accreditation Outcomes Consortium, and everyone who reviewed and provided feedback to this project.

About this supplement

This article has been published as part of BMC Medical Education Volume 20 Supplement 1, 2020: Current themes and challenges facing HPE accreditation in the twenty-first century. The full contents of the supplement are available online at https://bmcmedicaleducation.biomedcentral.com/articles/supplements/volume-20-supplement-1.

Funding

No funding was obtained for this study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

IP did the basic organization of the article and aggregated resources and reference. DB provided input, expanded a number of the concepts discussed, added references, and offered editorial guidance on several versions of the draft manuscript. Ingrid Philibert and Danielle Blouin both reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Authors’ information

IP is a researcher, writer and educator in Iowa City, Iowa. She is visiting faculty at the Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University, North Haven, Connecticut, and directs the Tracking and Evaluation Core at the Great Plains IDeA CTR at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska.

DB is a Full Professor in the Faculty of Health Sciences (Department of Emergency Medicine), and in the Faculty of Education at Queen’s University. She holds a Master of Health Professions Education degree, and a PhD in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of Illinois at Chicago. She maintains an academic clinical and education research practice.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ingrid Philibert.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Philibert, I., Blouin, D. Responsiveness to societal needs in postgraduate medical education: the role of accreditation. BMC Med Educ 20, 309 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02125-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Accreditation
  • Diversity
  • Equity
  • Postgraduate medical education
  • Societal accountability