University of Toronto Pre-Survey Meeting with Resident Representatives & Senior Residents

1. University of TorontoPre-Survey Meeting withResident Representatives &Senior Residents Date: September 21, 2012 Time: 9:00 – 10:30 a.m. Room: Queen’s Park BallroomPark Hyatt Hotel

2. Objectives of the Meeting To review the: • Accreditation Process • Categories of Accreditation • Standards of Accreditation • Role of residents in the accreditation process • Pilot accreditation process

3. Principles of Accreditation • Continuing quality improvement process • Peer-reviewed • Based on Standards • Categories of Accreditation

4. Role of the Resident in the Accreditation Process • Program Administration • Member of the Residency Program Committee • Must be elected • Communication to and from Residency Program Committee • Residency programs • Evaluation of the program • Rotations, teachers, teaching • Understand the Standards

5. Pilot Accreditation Process The University of Toronto is one of three universities participating in a pilot accreditation process! • Details for the pilot process will be discussed later in presentation

6. Six Year Survey Cycle 1 6 Monitoring 5 2 3 4 Internal Reviews

7. Process for Pre-Survey Questionnaires University Questionnaires Specialty Committee Questionnaires Royal College Comments Questionnaires & Comments Comments Program Director Surveyor

8. The Survey Team • Chair - Dr. Kamal Rungta • Responsible for general conduct of survey • Deputy chair – Dr. AnuragSaxena • Visits teaching sites / hospitals • Surveyors • Resident representatives – CAIR • Regulatory authorities representative – FMRAC • Teaching hospital representative– ACAHO

9. Information Given to Surveyors • Questionnaire (PSQ) and appendices • Completed by program • Program-specific Standards (OTR/STR/SSA) • Report of last regular survey • Specialty Committee comments • Also sent to PGD / PD prior to visit • Exam results for last six years • Reports of mandated Royal College reviews since last regular survey, if applicable

10. The Survey Schedule Includes: • Document review (30 min) • Meetings with: • Program director (75 min) • Department chairs (30 min) • Residents– per group of 20 (60 min) • Teaching staff (60 min) • Residency Program Committee (60 min)

11. The Survey Schedule Document review (30 min) • Residency Program Committee Minutes • Resident Assessments

12. Meeting Overview • Program director • Overall view of program • Evaluation of Standards • Department chair • Support for program • Resources available to program • Teaching faculty • Involvement with residents • Communication with program director

13. Meeting with ALL Residents • Group(s) of 20 residents (60 min) • If off-site, tele- or video- conferencing • Looking for balance of strengths & challenges • Focus on Standards • Evaluate the learning environment

14. Meeting with ALL Residents • Topics to discuss with residents • Objectives • Educational experiences • Service /education balance • Increasing professional responsibility • Academic program / protected time • Supervision • Assessments of resident performance • Evaluation of program / assessment of faculty • Career counseling • Educational environment • Safety

15. Preparing for the SurveyRole of the Resident • Complete the CAIR questionnaire • Confidential, not given to survey team • Meet together as a group to discuss the strengths & challenges of your program • 1 to 2 months before survey • Obtain a copy of the pre-survey questionnaires (PSQ) and the previous survey report • If you feel you need more time with surveyor, request it • Be open and honest with surveyor • Comments in meetings are anonymous

16. Meeting with Residency Program Committee All members of RPC attend meeting, including resident representatives • Review Committee responsibilities • Functioning appropriately • Opportunity for surveyor to provide feedback on information obtained during survey

17. The Recommendation • Survey team discussion • Evening following review • Feedback to program director • Exit meeting with surveyor • Morning after review • 07:30 – 07:45 • Survey team recommendation • Category of accreditation • Strengths & challenges

18. Categories of Accreditation New terminology • Revised and approved by the Royal College, CFPC and CMQ in June 2012.

19. Categories of Accreditation Accredited program • Follow-up: • Next regular survey • Progress report within 12-18 months (Accreditation Committee) • Internal review within 24 months • External review within 24 months Accredited program on notice of intent to withdraw accreditation • Follow-up: • External review conducted within 24 months

20. Categories of Accreditation Definitions • Accredited program with follow-up at next regular survey • Program demonstrates acceptable compliance with standards.

21. Categories of Accreditation Definitions • Accredited program with follow-up byCollege-mandated internal review • Major issues identified in more than one Standard • Internal review of program required and conducted by University • Internal review due within 24 months

22. Categories of Accreditation Definitions • Accredited program with follow-up by external review • Major issues identified in more than one Standard AND concerns - • are specialty-specific and best evaluated by a reviewer from the discipline, OR • have been persistent, OR • are strongly influenced by non-educational issues and can best be evaluated by a reviewer from outside the University • External review conducted within 24 months • College appoints a 2-3 member review team • Same format as regular survey

23. Categories of Accreditation Definitions • Accredited program onnotice of intent to withdraw accreditation • Major and/or continuing non-compliance with one or more Standards which calls into question the educational environment and/or integrity of the program • External review conducted by 3 people (2 specialists + 1 resident) within 24 months • At the time of the review, the program will be required to show why accreditation should not be withdrawn.

24. After the Survey survey team Reports specialty committee royal college university Report & Response Reports Responses Recommendation Reports & Responses accreditation committee

25. The Accreditation Committee • Chair + 16 members • Ex-officio voting members (6) • Collège des médecins du Québec (1) • Medical Schools (2) • Resident Associations (2) • Regulatory Authorities (1) • Observers (9) • Collège des médecins du Québec (1) • Resident Associations (2) • College of Family Physicians of Canada (1) • Regulatory Authorities (1) • Teaching Hospitals (1) • Resident Matching Service (1) • Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (2)

26. Information Available to the Accreditation Committee • All pre-survey documentation available to surveyor • Survey report • Program response • Specialty Committee recommendation • History of the program

27. The Accreditation Committee • Decisions • Accreditation Committee meeting • October 2013 • Dean & postgraduate dean attend • Sent to • University • Specialty Committee • Appeal process is available

28. General Standards of Accreditation “A” Standards • Apply to University, specifically the PGME office “B” Standards • Apply to EACH residency program • Updated January 2011

29. “A” Standards Standards for University & Education Sites A1 University Structure A2 Sites for Postgraduate Medical Education A3 Liaison between University and Participating Institutions

30. “B” Standards Standards for EACH residency program B1 Administrative Structure B2 Goals & Objectives B3 Structure and Organization of the Program B4 Resources B5 Clinical, Academic & Scholarly Content of the Program B6 Assessment of Resident Performance

31. B1 – Administrative Structure There must be an appropriate administrative structure for each residency program. • Program director • Time & support • Residency Program Committee • Representative from each site and major component • Resident member(s) • Must include at least ONE elected resident • Meets regularly, four times a year • Minutes

32. B1 – Administrative Structure • Responsibilities of the Residency Program Committee • Selection, evaluation & promotion of residents • Ongoing review of program • Assessment of program / teachers / rotations • Research environment • Appeal mechanism • Career & stress counseling • Resident safety

33. B2 – Goals & Objectives There must be a clearly worded statement outlining the goals of the residency program and the educational objectives of the residents. • Rotation-specific • Structure to reflect CanMEDS Roles • Circulated to residents & teaching staff • Used in planning and assessment of residents

34. CanMEDS Roles • Medical Expert • Communicator • Collaborator • Manager • Health Advocate • Scholar • Professional

35. B3 – Structure & Organization There must be an organized program of rotations and other educational experiences, both mandatory and elective, designed to fulfill the educational requirements and allow residents to achieve competence in the specialty. • Include all components of specialty • Equal opportunity

36. B3 – Structure & Organization • Increasing professional responsibility • Appropriate independence as residents progress • Supervision • Call • Frequency • In-hospital or from home • Expectations (e.g. cross coverage) • Service / education balance • Educational environment • Promote resident safety • Free from intimidation, harassment or abuse

37. B4 – Resources There must be sufficient resources to provide the opportunity for all residents to achieve the educational objectives. • Teaching faculty • Variety & number of patients • Physical and technical facilities • Inpatient, ambulatory, emergency, ICU • Organized • Supervised

38. B5 – Clinical, Academic & Scholarly Content of Program There must be a clinical, academic and scholarly program that prepares residents to fulfill all the roles of the specialist. • Organized academic program • Academic half-day, journal club • Address the CanMEDS competencies • Attendance • Staff, residents • Provide teaching • Something more than observation and role modeling is expected

39. B6 – Evaluation of Resident Performance There must be mechanisms to ensure systematic assessment of each resident. • Based on goals & objectives • Uses appropriate and varied assessment methods • Feedback • Formal, timely, appropriate • Face-to-face • Adequately documented

40. Pilot Accreditation Process Scheduled from April 7 to 12, 2013 • PGME and teaching sites – A Standards • Residency programs – B Standards

41. Pilot Accreditation Process ALL residency programs • Complete PSQ • Undergo a review, either by • On-site survey, or • PSQ/documentation review, and input from various stakeholders Process varies depending on group • Mandated for on-site survey • Eligible for exemption from on-site survey • Selected for on-site survey

42. Programs Mandated for On-site Survey Scheduled for On-site Reviewin April 2013 Criteria • Core specialties • General Surgery, Internal Medicine, Obstetrics & Gynecology Pediatrics, Psychiatry • Palliative Medicine • Conjoint Royal College/CFPC program • Program Status • Not on full approval since last regular survey • New program which has not had a mandated internal review conducted

43. Process for Programs Mandated for On-site Review Process remains the same • PSQ Review • Specialty Committee • On-site survey by surveyor • Survey team recommendation • Survey report • Specialty Committee • Final decision by Accreditation Committee • Meeting in October 2013 • Dean & postgraduate dean attend

44. Programs Eligible forExemption from On-site Review Criteria • Program on full approval since last regular on-site survey

45. Process for Programs Eligible for Exemption • PSQ and documentation review • Accreditation Committee reviewer • Specialty Committee • Recommendations to exempt • Accreditation Committee reviewer • Specialty Committee • Postgraduate dean • Resident organization (CAIR) • Steering Committee (AC) Decision • Review of recommendations • Exempted: on-site survey not required • Not exempted: program scheduled for on-site survey in April • Selected program (random) • University notified in January 2013

46. Contact Information at theRoyal College accred@royalcollege.ca 613-730-6202 Office of Education Margaret Kennedy Assistant Director Accreditation & Liaison Educational Standards Unit Lise Dupéré Manager Sylvie Lavoie Survey Coordinator