Evaluation and Analysis of the Accreditation of the Chinese Medical Education (Undergraduate)
Zhang Shu,Wang Weimin,Chen Juan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-677x.2019.10.001
2019-01-01
Abstract:Objective To evaluate the implementation subjects,process and results of accreditation of the Chinese medical education (undergraduate),so as to put forward suggestions for implementation.Methods The paper adopts the method of questionnaire survey based on the framework of the study on the meta-evaluation index system of accreditation for the Chinese medical education projects from July 2018 to April 2019.The questions with low scores in the questionnaire were supplemented with expert interviews.Results The accreditation of the Chinese medical education (undergraduate) evaluation sheet covers five dimensions as follows:practicability,feasibility,validity,accuracy,and the assessment of accountability,also includes 57 items which scores are higher than 4.00 in the Richter magnitude scale,the objects of study carry out the higher evaluation in general,but they think the process of accreditation still have several questions,in the aspect of strengthening the objectivity of accreditation,enhancing the homogeneity of experts training,formulating reasonable planning accreditation schedule,paying attention to continuous improvement of colleges and universities,and reinforcing the re-evaluation of the accreditation of the Chinese medical education still need further improvement.Conclusions By the way of accreditation,it is concluded that the development of the accreditation of the Chinese medical education is generally good in five dimensions of practicality,feasibility,legitimacy,accuracy and evaluation and accountability.It can be regarded as a reasonable mode to guarantee the quality of medical education currently.However,there are still some weakness in the process of accreditation,such as the lack of quantitative evaluation indicators,insufficient attention to the continuous improvement of colleges and universities,and inter-group differences in expert evaluation.