Iranian Experience on Assessing Quality in Medical Education

1
(No Transcript)
2
Iranian Experience on Assessing Quality in
Medical Education A Report of Mashhad
University of Medical sciences (MUMS), Iran
M.T.Rajabi-Mashhadi Dean of Medical Faculty,
MUMS
3
Introduction Middle income countries such as
Iran are dealing with lack of resources in
comparison to high income countries. As a result,
translation of international standards on local
situation may not be realistic. Continuous
internal evaluation based on international
standards which are adjusted on socioeconomic
status and culture seems the best practical
interim solution.
4
Introduction
Iranian Ministry of Health and Medical Education
has recently evaluated Medical Schools based on a
wide variety of variables including Education,
Research and Infrastructure (1). The aim of this
study was to find the strong and weak points of
this University in comparison to the other major
Iranian Universities to facilitate introducing an
interventional plan for shirting the resources
towards less developed determinants within the
University.
5
Methodology In a secondary analysis, individual
indices related to Education, Research and
Infrastructure in relation to Mashhad University
of Medical Sciences (MUMS) and other Universities
were extracted from the national ranking source
in 2003-4. The first top ten Universities were
sorted based on their overall score. The
criterion for assessing each index was its
disproportionate position (positive or negative)
to the overall score of the overall Mashhad
University. SPSS 11.5 used to analyze data.
6
Results
The weakest pointes were theses and student
research centers (Figure).
7
Results
In regard to infrastructures the strongest point
of the University was student health care and the
weakest pointes were the number of dormitories.
8
Results Overall, MUMS was in fourth place after
a hypothetical superior, Tehran and
Shahid-Beheshti Universities.
9
Results
However, its rank was very different according to
various indices. Overall in Education section it
was in 4th place, in research in 8th and in
infrastructure in 8th places.
10
Results
The strongest educational points of this
University were teaching staff per capita and
information services in which Mashhad was in 2nd
and 3rd places respectively.
11
Results
The weakest educational pointes were outpatient
clinic and course introductions with being in
29th and 22nd positions.
12
Results
In the field of research the strongest
determinants of this University were workshops
(3rd) and unconfirmed research centers (2nd) in
comparison to other universities.
13
Input section Mashhad was in 3rd place
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
(No Transcript)
37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
(No Transcript)
40
(No Transcript)
41
(No Transcript)
42
(No Transcript)
43
(No Transcript)
44
Discussion
Overall Mashhad is in third Place Shahid Beheshti
is ahead, and Shiraz is behind
45
Discussion
Most important issues via statistics Low
confirmed Research centres High not confirmed
research Centres Low capability of familial
dormitories
46
Limitation of Ranking
47
Limitation of Ranking
48
There are lies, damned lies, and
statistics."- Mark Twain 1835-1910
49
Is working on ranking Ethical? Yes Certainly
50
Suggestions
Establishing a ranking committee in each
faculty Appointing a ranking officer in each
section Dissemination the check list
51
Conclusion The available resources and
monitoring in MUMS should be shifted towards the
weaker indices such as education in outpatient
clinic, introducing courses, development of
student research centers and dormitories. The
strongest points of MUMS can be analyzed,
supported and bench marked for other
Universities.
52
Conclusion
As a part of achieving international standards,
ranking of different indices among local
universities can be used as a valuable source of
information for allocation centralized support.
By using these indices the inter-indices
variability will be minimized and the entire
University will be homogenized, which is a major
goal in management.
53

• References
• Mohammadi A. et al (2003-4) Information Bank and
  Ranking of the Iranian Medical Faculties, 2nd
  Edition, Ministry of Health and Medical
  Education, Iran, PP 100-229.
• 2. Hamdy H, Prasad K, Anderson MB, Scherpbier A,
  Williams R, Zwierstra R, Cuddihy H. BEME
  systematic review predictive values of
  measurements obtained in medical schools and
  future performance in medical practice. Med
  Teach. 2006 Mar28(2)103-16.
• 3. Haas LJ, Glazer K, Houchins J, Terry S.
  Improving the effectiveness of the medical visit
  a brief visit-structuring workshop changes
  patients' perceptions of primary care visits.
  Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Sep62(3)374-8. Epub
  2006 Jul 25
• 4. Yam CS, Kruskal J, Pedrosa I, Kressel H.Part
  II preparing and assessing first-year radiology
  resident on-call readiness technical
  implementation. Acad Radiol. 2006
  Jun13(6)770-3.
• 5. Farid-ul-Hasnain S, Israr SM, Jessani
  S.Assessing the effects of training on knowledge
  and skills of health personnel a case study from
  the family health project in Sindh, Pakistan. J
  Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2005 Oct-Dec17(4)26-30
  .
• 6. Bailit JL, Weisberger A, Knotek J. Resident
  job satisfaction and quality of life before and
  after work hour reform. J Reprod Med. 2005
  Sep50(9)649-52.

Acknowledgement Staff of Mashhad University of
Medical Sciences