糖心传媒

Model standards and procedures for specialist medical college accreditation of training settings

Opened: 30 September 2024

Closed: 11 November 2024

The 糖心传媒 consulted on the draft model accreditation standards and procedures for specialist medical college accreditation of training settings.

• Consultation paper
• Attachment 1 鈥�听Draft model standards for specialist medical college accreditation of training settings
• Attachment 2 鈥撎�Draft model procedures for specialist medical college accreditation of training settings

• Consultation feedback form

The development of these documents is part of the joint 糖心传媒/specialist medical college project to implement and the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman (NHPO) recommendations contained in the report, . Further information regarding this work is available on the 糖心传媒 website here. An impact assessment for the development of model standards has been prepared and is available for download.

Submissions received

The 糖心传媒 received approximately 45 submissions. Some stakeholders either requested that their submission not be published, or did not provide specific permission for their submission to be published.

Submissions from organisations and individuals are listed alphabetically below. They include only the names of the individuals and/or the organisations that made them.

We have redacted contact details and comments that are potentially defamatory, sensitive, identifying, or which are outside the scope of the subject of the consultation, from published submissions.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in the submissions are those of the individuals or organisations who submitted them and their publication does not imply any acceptance of, or agreement with, these views by the 糖心传媒.

Organisations

• Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM)
• Australasian College of Dermatologists (ACD)
• Australasian College of Sport and Exercise Physicians (ACSEP)
• Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA)
• Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine (ACRRM)
• Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC)
• Australian Orthopaedic Association (AOA)
• College of Intensive Care Medicine (CICM)
• Department of Health Tasmania
• Department of Health WA
• Doctors’ Health NSW
• Mater Mothers鈥� Hospital (Brisbane)
• Queensland Health
• Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP)
• Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS)
• Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) – New Zealand Board of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery (NZBPRS)
• Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists (RANZCO)
• Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP)
• Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) – SA Psychiatry Branch Training Committee
• Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR)
• Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP)
• Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital (Metro North Brisbane)
• Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA)
• Rural Psychiatry Training WA
• Safer Care Victoria
• Western Sydney Local Health District

Individuals

• Nirenberg A

糖心传媒 response to consultation feedback

The consultation responses were detailed and indicated a high level of engagement from stakeholders. Having undertaken a review of all responses, the following key themes emerged.

• Positive feedback was received overall regarding the model standards and model procedures being easy to read and understand.
• There was general support for the structure and approach in both the model standards and model procedures, including support for standardising terminology.
• The majority of colleges and jurisdictions stated that implementation of both the standards and core elements of the model procedures is feasible within 1-2 years of final endorsement by the college, noting there were some exceptions to this.
• There was extensive commentary about the trainee health and wellbeing standards, both on the language used and the need for practical guidance on how to resolve issues when they arise. The language used in the standard aligns with the work health and safety obligations of colleges and training providers and has therefore been retained without change. However, further work is being undertaken to develop a framework for practical steps to be taken when the health and welfare of trainees may be at risk.
• All colleges confirmed the need for college specific requirements, although the nature and extent of these differed.
• There was support for the risk framework, with feedback that it codifies the existing decision-making process.
  • There was a request for risks related to patient safety to be more clearly articulated in the risk framework. It is noted that patient safety and high-quality training are inextricably linked, in that the existence of one supports the other. Some wording has been added into the risk framework to reflect this.
  • Many college responses noted that where new settings are rated as 鈥榟igh risk鈥�, provisional accreditation would generally not be granted. The risk rating outcomes and accreditation outcomes table have been updated to reflect this (note: this is for new settings only, not existing settings).
  • Several colleges noted that it would be of assistance if there was greater flexibility in the wording around extreme risks in the risk framework to allow colleges and settings to work together to address immediate concerns (lower the risk), before moving towards revoking accreditation. The risk rating outcomes and accreditation outcomes table have been updated to reflect this.
  • Several submissions requested the inclusion of further definitions in the risk framework and more detailed advice regarding its application. This will be addressed in a guidance document being developed to support implementation of the framework.