PEER REVIEW AS A TOOL FOR CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT IN PUBLIC HEALTH TRAINING

1
PEER REVIEW AS A TOOL FOR CONTINUOUS QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT IN PUBLIC HEALTH TRAINING

• Workshop
• 2005, Jerevan

2
The mission of ASPHER

• to improve the quality of Public Health
  education and to ensure standards

3
The aim of the workshop

• to promote PEER review for the future active
  development of quality across public health
  training institutions
• Objectives
• -     to overview the history of PEER review
  
• - to share experience of PEER review
  among the
• Schools of Public Health
• -         to develop the idea of PEER Forum
• - to gather suggestions on PEER
  development

4

• The PEER operates as a mechanism, in terms of
  programme content and quality standards, to
  develop curricula, provide guidance and steering
  in development and share best practice throughout
  the region.

5
Historical development of PEER review

• 1992 General Assembly gives mandate to EB to
  organize a process for mutual recognition
• 1993-1994 PEER Public health Education European
  Review was devised
• 2001 "Quality Improvement and Accreditation of
  Training Programmes in Public Health published
• 2001 the Executive Board set up an Accreditation
  Task Force chaired by J. Sitko
• 2001-2003(4) Program aimed at developing quality
  in Public Health Teaching Programs, across 13
  countries throughout the CEE region
• 2002 Accreditation framework document prepared

6
PEER committee

• Franco Cavallo
• Ramune Kalediene (chair)
• Richard Madeley
• Gudjon Magnusson
• Stojgniew J.Sitko

7
Process of continuous quality improvement and
mutual recognition

• Preparatory stage
• Self-evaluation based on agreed criteria
• External review
• ASPHER PEER review
• National accreditation agency review
• Pre-examination by Acreditation Agency
• Accreditation

8
Where are we now?

• Up to now 21 SPH reviewed
• 2004 Project LEONARDO DA VINCI Community
  Vocational Training Action Programme Public
  Health European Review of European Schools of
  Public Health prepared (rejected)
• Survey on the situation and the needs of PEER
  review performed

9
Questionnaire surveyJune, 2005

• Was your SPH/program reviewed by ASPHER?
• What was the major challenge related to the PEER
  review process?
• What was the major benefit from PEER review?
• Would you like to have your programs PEER
  reviewed in the future?
• If Yes, when, and what is the title of the
  programs? 
• Would your institution be able to pay for PEER
  review procedure?
• If you would not like to have your programs
  reviewed, why?
• What would you suggest to the PEER review
  committee for improvement of the review process?

10
Results from the survey

• Number of responses 29
• Interested in PEER review 17 (14 definitely, 3 in
  principle), mainly in 2006-2007
• Able to find finances for this procedure 17 (14
  sure, 3 might be or partly)

11
Major challenges related to PEER review

• Time consuming
• Developing the report
• Handling the comprehensiveness of the process
• Comparison with European standards is complicated
  for some newly established SPH
• Recognition of diplomas
• English language for some SPH

12
Major benefits from PEER review

• Enabled to reassess programs critically
• Highlithed strengts and weaknesses
• Constructive criticism
• Initiated new activities
• Waking up the sense of team work and common aim
• Adding an external perspective from highly
  skilled experts
• Essential tool within own quality assurance
  system
• Useful for communication with local and national
  authorities
• Served as a basis for comments to a succeeding
  national rieview
• International support

13
The reasons of not willing to have PEER review

• Programs are in the active process of development
  or innovation
• Difficult to find money
• No recognition of the review process in the
  National system
• Universities are subject to a wide range of
  review processes, additional work load for the
  staff
• Not sure of benefits
• Internal politics of institution
• Time consuming
• National accreditation is not completed
• Would like accreditation to be the next step

14
Suggestions for improvement

• To have formal agreement at the European level or
  among scientific and professional health societie
  of the review process
• Formalizing the status of PEER within National
  accreditation procedures and systems
• To assure more institutional recognition on
  international horizon
• Guarantee the independency of the experts
• Establish links between PEER and acreditation
• Upgrade PEER criteria
• Help to find financial resources
• Follow up after one year
• Clarify the guidelines
• Make it less time consuming
• To convince SPH that PEER is worthwhile!

15
Next steps

• Project has to be resubmitted
• Further plan for PEER should be developed
• Establishment of
• PEER Forum
• (League)?

16
Possible role of PEER Forum

• Quality Legue
• Reviewed schools
• Sharing good practices
• Consultations on documents/procedures
• Mutual support
• Resubmition of EU grant project

17
e mc2

• e enthusiasm
• m mission
• c cash and congratulations