Formative evaluation for Faculties of medicine

1. Formative evaluationfor Faculties of medicine About CIDMEF experience Jacques Roland Arkhangelsk, 2012

2. Cidmef : International Conference of the deans of French speaking Faculties of medicine Arkhangelsk, 2012

3. CIDMEF spread 42 countries 120 faculties of medicine 8 4 3 2 3 21 3 Arkhangelsk, 2012

4. CIDMEFEvaluation Council • First draft : beginning of the 90’ in Canada (Quebec) : • Jean Mathieu, Pierre Potvin, TewfikNawar. • First experiments : 1993 • Tunis, Louvain (UCL), Beyrouth • Finalization of a politic of evaluation : 1995 • Adoption of basic norms : 2007 Brussel • Founding of a quality label CIDMEF : 2010 Lille Arkhangelsk, 2012

5. Exchanges with other organisations • AERES : French official agency for evaluation • LCME : liaison committee in medicaleducation (Canada, USA) (normes) • WFME : world federation for medicaleducation (normes) • FAIMER : foundation for the advancement of international medicaleducation and research • Global Health Initiative (USA) Arkhangelsk, 2012

6. Principles of the Cidmefevaluation • Volontary action, never imposed • Importance of self-evaluation • Formative process only (without any sanction) • No purpose of comparison with others faculties or of standardization Arkhangelsk, 2012

7. Three main questions for the Faculty • Are the missions and the objectives well defined ? • Does it have the necessary means to reach these objectives? • Can it bring the proof that the objectives have been achieved ? Arkhangelsk, 2012

8. Importance of the objectives • There is no good wind for the seamanwhodon’t know wherehesails(Sénèque) • If youdon’t know whereyou’regoing, any road will do (Alice in wonderland, Lewis Carroll) Arkhangelsk, 2012

9. Institutional objectives • Set up by the « society », Department of Education, of Health, University… • Three fields : • Education, Research, Provision of services • Make Reference to values : • Universal values : respect of the Human Rights and of Life • Basic values of health systems (quality, equity, efficiency) • Social responsability of medical Faculties Arkhangelsk, 2012

10. Derived and specific objectives • - Precise • - Operational • - Ready to be checked Arkhangelsk, 2012

11. Cidmef basic norms • Universal, • Minimums must be shared by all the medical schools • Can be used like quality criteria for a Cidmef labelling Arkhangelsk, 2012

12. Evaluation steps • 1. Local decision and request to the CIDMEF • 2. Preliminary visit • 3. Self-evaluation • 4. Visit of the external commission • 5. Report • 6. Follow-up Arkhangelsk, 2012

13. 1. Local decision • crucial ! • Evaluation isgoing to provoke a great deal of efforts • To make the decision, a strong support from all isrequired and in particular : • From a large majority of the teachers • From the local and national Authorities Arkhfrom theangelsk, 2012

14. 2. Preliminary visit(1) • By a limited external group (2 people) • Meeting with : • authorities • teachers • employees • students Arkhangelsk, 2012

15. 2.Preliminary visit (2) : objectives • Information • Reassuring • Motivation • Planning • Specific status of the students (private meetings) Arkhangelsk, 2012

16. 3. Self-evaluation(1) • In eachfield: • Description of the staff • Description of the means • In eachfield self-analysis • Opinion about strengths and weaknesses • Internal propositions for corrections, reforms, advices and plans Fields • Governance • Programs • Continuedmedicalformation • Research • Teachers • Students • Administration • Financial and materialresources Arkhangelsk, 2012

17. 3. Self-evaluation (2) : the curriculum • Description of contents, duration, management of teaching, • Balance between Care Medicine, Prevention, Public Health • Balance betweentheory and practice, importance of autonomy • Check the processes of internalevaluation for teaching and programs rkhangelsk, 2012

18. 3. Self-evaluation (3) : professionalism • Connection with society, medical profession,other health professions, • Approaches to ethical and deontologic aspects during curriculum • Reality of formations to communication, decision, adaptation of behaviour rkhangelsk, 2012

19. 3. Self-evaluation (4) : strategy • Meta-objectives • Generate a collective thought about shared values, missions and objectives • Mobilize the staff for a commun policy • Favorise connection in and between the departments • Develop or create a spirit of evaluation Direct objectives • Obtain clarification about mission and objectives • Writing the report of self-evaluation for sending to the external commission rkhangelsk, 2012

20. 3. Self-evaluation(5) : Students’ specific case • The report of students is sent directly to the experts of the external commission (no transmission to the local authorities) Arkhangelsk, 2012

21. 4. External commission (1) : composition • Five members • three foreigners, two from the country • All members are teachers of medecine, with collective responsabilites in their University • Designation of a president and a secretary within the commission Arkhangelsk, 2012

22. 4. External commission (2) : casting • President : leader, allocate tasks to each member, responsible for synthesis of the report • Secretary : connections between the commission and the Faculty, research of documentation • Each member is responsible for a part of the evaluation and then of the final report. Arkhangelsk, 2012

23. 4. External commission (3) :material conditions • Members of the external commission are not paid, the journey is paid by the Cidmef, the stay charges by the evaluated Faculty • The evaluated Faculty is responsible for the organization Arkhangelsk, 2012

24. 4. Externalevaluation(4) : Progress • Dean and President of University are met individually • Meetings with all the officials, persons in charge for teaching, research, administration, students, professional associations.. • Stay during 3 to 5 days according to the importance of the Faculty. Arkhangelsk, 2012

25. 4. Externalevaluation(5) : investigation • The report of self-evaluation guides the investigation : choice of the persons to be questioned, clarifications to be obtained, further fields to be explored • Comparison between the opinions expressed on the same subjects by different actors. Arkhangelsk, 2012

26. 4. Externalevaluation(6) :Preliminary report • At the end of the stay, the external commission presents to the Dean and to the President of University a short report. • This report describes the main conclusions and the remaining interrogations. Authorities’ answerswillbeused for the final report. Arkhangelsk, 2012

27. 5. Definitive report • Each member of the external commission writes his part of the report and sends it to the president of the external commission. • The last step is to harmonize the different chapters, then to highlight strengths and weaknesses in a specific chapter before giving recommandations and advices. • The definitive report is sent only to the Dean and to the President of University. The spread of the document is done under their own responsability. Arkhangelsk, 2012

28. 5. Follow-up • A new visit is organized within the two following years to check the effects of the evaluation Arkhangelsk, 2012

29. Global assessment • 38 Facultiesevaluated • Encountereddifficulties: • Impossibility to finalize (2) • Opposition of Authorities (2) • Difficulties to put the advicesinto practice • New Dean, new President… But in 34 cases, a regardedtool for imposing change and movingforward Arkhangelsk, 2012

30. Conclusion We have the choice… Arkhangelsk, 2012