School of health and Sports Sciences, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Australia.
Sunshine Coast Health Institute, Birtinya, Australia.
J Interprof Care. 2021 Sep-Oct;35(5):691-700. doi: 10.1080/13561820.2020.1808601. Epub 2020 Sep 16.
In Australia, a national approach to accreditation of programs and regulation of health professions was adopted a decade ago. Accreditation standards and regulatory frameworks can drive change and provide support for interprofessional education and collaborative practice. There is a commonly held belief among Australian academics involved in health professional education, that accreditation and practice standards provide system-level support for interprofessional education and interprofessional collaborative practice. Using a purpose-designed analysis framework and scoring scheme, we analyzed standards of accreditation and practice for 29 regulated, self-regulated and member health professions in Australia to determine the extent and accountability of statements related to interprofessional education and interprofessional collaborative practice. Currently, in Australia, there is a fragmented and inconsistent approach to interprofessional education and interprofessional collaboration evident in accreditation and practice standards and, in general, there are more explicit requirements in standards of the regulated health professions. However, overall the concepts of interprofessional education and interprofessional practice are ill-defined and statements lack accountability and/or outcome measures. Our analysis provides a foundation for reform of Australian standards and an approach for analysis of accreditation and practice standards which may be useful in other jurisdictions.
在澳大利亚,十年前就采用了一种针对项目认证和卫生专业监管的国家方法。认证标准和监管框架可以推动变革,并为跨专业教育和协作实践提供支持。参与卫生专业教育的澳大利亚学者普遍认为,认证和实践标准为跨专业教育和跨专业协作实践提供了系统层面的支持。我们使用专门设计的分析框架和评分方案,对澳大利亚 29 个受监管、自我监管和成员健康专业的认证和实践标准进行了分析,以确定与跨专业教育和跨专业协作实践相关的陈述的范围和责任。目前,澳大利亚的认证和实践标准中明显存在着零散和不一致的跨专业教育和跨专业协作方法,而且通常在受监管的卫生专业标准中会有更明确的要求。然而,总体而言,跨专业教育和实践的概念定义不明确,陈述缺乏问责制和/或结果衡量标准。我们的分析为澳大利亚标准的改革提供了基础,并为其他司法管辖区的认证和实践标准分析提供了一种方法。