Guest Speaker: There was no guest speaker for this webinar.
Element and Topic of the Month: 1.1 (strategic planning and continuous quality improvement) and LCME White Paper “Implementing a System for Monitoring Performance in LCME Accreditation Standards”
Presentation Slides: July 18, 2019 Connecting with the Secretariat Webinar
Submitted Question on Element 1.1
- Please describe the differences (and/or the similarities) between Element 8.4 Program Evaluation and Element 1.1 Strategic Planning and CQI, and the LCME white paper “Implementing a System for Monitoring Performance in LCME Accreditation Standards”.
- The LCME’s White Paper on a System for Monitoring Performance in LCME Accreditation Standards recommends “a formal (i.e., approved) policy or guideline” confirming that monitoring will occur and describing the monitoring process and responsibilities. Could you address the expectations about formalizing (i.e., approving) such a policy? For example, what roles/groups or committee(s) would be involved? My informal survey of colleagues suggests that there is variation in whether their school’s policy/guideline is formalized through official governance channels (curriculum committee, faculty senate, etc.) or simply having the education dean and dean/dean’s cabinet “approve” it.
- In operationalizing (through a formal policy) the Continuous Quality Improvement standing committee, chaired/directed by an individual with LCME accreditation knowledge/experience, do you have a “best practice” for committee composition? Specifically an optimal ratio of elected vs. appointed faculty members?
- Is there a “best practice” envisioned by LCME for other essential standing (i.e. determined by policy and/or bylaws) in terms of elected vs. appointed faculty representation – or is this left to the institution?
