Council On Chiropractic Education (CCE)

FCLB Annual MeetingMarch 2008

Welcome/Intro

Kathleen Galligan, D.C.Chair

Commission on Accreditation

Marc Gammerman, DCCommissioner

Council on Chiropractic Education

OVERVIEW OF CCE

Three separate, distinct components

Members

Board of Directors

Commission on Accreditation (COA)

COMMISSION ON ACCREDITATION

Certify the quality and integrity of the DCPs, using the Standards, through the process of accreditation

Development and training of site team members

Confidentiality

Conflict of Interest

Consensus based approach

HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMISSION PROCESS

HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMISSION PROCESS

Composition of the COA

Assignment of reviewers

Role of the Chair

ACCREDITATION CYCLE

Four year cycle (Initial) Eight year cycle (Reaffirmation)

Interim ReportingPCBRProgress ReportsOther Reports (if necessary)

ACCREDITATION CYCLE

Full site visit

Interim Visit

Focused Visit

USDE Timeline regarding concerns

SITE VISIT

Purpose of Site VisitConfirmation by the site team of the

information presented by the DCP in the Self Study

Creation of a report to the Commission for the purpose of an accreditation decision

Site Team Academy

Group of trained individuals that serve as the eyes and ears of the COA

ANATOMY OF A SITE VISIT

Validation of self study information by the site team

Creation of the site team report Response to report by the

DCP Decision by COA

COA Decision

DCP response

Site Team Report

Self Study completed by DCP

SITE VISIT CONTINUED

Full site visit team Chair, Administrative ExpertFinance ExpertBasic Science/Research ExpertClinical Science ExpertClinical Management ExpertPracticing DC

SITE VISIT CONTINUED

Job of the site team is to evaluate the content of the self study and the evidence presented by the DCP in comparison to the actual Standards

Evaluate documents, do chart reviews, interview faculty, administrators and students

Produce a report outlining their findings

THE STANDARDS

Actual Standards cover close to 40 pages

25 pages of clinical standards

Up until the past year or so, they have changed yearly

CLINICAL EDUCATION

Majority of Concerns (almost ½)

Quantitative vs Qualitative

25 pages of Standards to be met

AREAS OF CONCERN

July 2005-January 2008 (3 yrs)Total of 62 concerns identified 20 concerns currently open

COA 2008 SITE TEAM VISIT

BUD SMITH CHIROPRACTIC COLLEGE

AKA

“BS”CC

BSCC

COA DECISION MAKING PROCESS

Thorough read of self study and site team report by all commissioners

Overview of the highlights of the site team report (possible concerns/commendations)

Possible appearance by the DCP

COA DECISION MAKING PROCESS

Open discussion until consensus is reached regarding

What concerns remain What reporting is required Timeline for reporting Need for future visits Affect on accreditation status

BSCC FOCUSED SITE VISIT

Clinical Education5. Required Clinical Competencies

f. Diagnosis g. Case Management

These two standards actually have 36 parts and cover three full pages in the Standards Manual

BSCC CLINIC

Evaluation by Site Team

Interview with Clinic Director

Review of Diagnosis and Case Management work done in the didactic setting

Chart Audit

Form SyndromeICD.9 1234.5

If a problem exists, develop a form

Better yet, develop two forms

Develop a form to track the previously mentioned forms

Examples

Clinical Education5. Required Clinical Competencies

f. Diagnosis g. Case Management

 

After ChangeStudents

Before ChangeStudents

t-test(* sig at p=.05)

GEDGeneral Diagnosis

Pass 88 45

Pass % 95% 71% 4.67*

Ave Score 510 401

Overall Part IIExam

Pass 72 37

Pass % 77% 59%

Example

Example

Clinical Education5. Required Clinical Competencies

f. Diagnosis g. Case Management

Audit Indicator 6/06 10/06 Spring07

Appropriate outcome measurement tools were used.

74.8% 82.8% 84%

Objective, measurable, short-term treatment goals are recorded.

8.7% 68.7% 82%

Objective, measurable, long-term treatment goals are recorded.

7.8% 66.7% 83%

The plan of management is appropriate for the diagnosis listed.

93.9% 92.9% 97%

SUMMARY

Collegial, cooperative process between the programs and the CCE

Goal is high quality chiropractic education Evaluation strives to be fair and thorough Evaluation of the programs is ongoing Continuous self assessment by both the

programs and the CCE

Standards Revision Task Force

Established in 2006 Members bring experience from academics, professional

practice, higher education and regulation Charged with making recommedations for change to the

Standards Largest overhaul of the Standards in years, goal is to

establish an ongoing five year review of the Standards Task Force members work on a total of 10

subcommittees

Standards Revision (cont’d)

Information Gathering StageMeetings attended around the country

(academic, regulatory, professional)Surveys of various constituents and

organizations Information gathered from the Commission

Standards Revision (cont’d)

All areas of the Standards have been reviewed with suggested revisions being generated

Four areas generate the most conversation and likely the greatest revision

Curriculum requirements Clinical competencies Admissions requirements Research

Much discussion regarding how best to incorporate ethics and professionalism

Standards Revision (cont’d)

First draft expected to be ready by mid-June for Task Force review and edits

Goal to gain approval from the CCE BOD by October 2008

Draft then circulated to stakeholders for comment, with further drafts to follow

Standards Revision Summary

New Standards written with significant input from many facets of the profession

Less prescriptive than current Standards, allowing programs to meet the Standards in the manner that best fits their mission

Focus on accountability for demonstrating outcomes of the program

More user friendly with examples of evidence needed to demonstrate compliance