Search

Objective: To evaluate the suitability and acceptability of virtual training post accreditation visits conducted online for medical specialist training in ophthalmology in Australia and New Zealand. Methods: A two-phase study (pilot and implementation) was conducted. In the pilot phase, an open-ended observation proforma was used by the authors to independently record their observations, which were later compared and discussed until consensus was achieved. All participants were asked to complete an online survey. A document analysis of accreditation documents was conducted. Observation data were broken down into themes and triangulated with online survey and document analysis results. In the implementation phase, the inspections were observed by one of the authors (SK) and the observation notes were discussed with other authors to obtain a contextual and consensual view. A document analysis of all accreditation-related documentation was undertaken. The documents included in the document analysis were planning and scheduling records, interview and inspection notes, training post inspection fact and document notices and accreditation reports. Finally, a post-inspection focus group of all inspectors was conducted. Results: The accreditation interviews adequately addressed all relevant issues with high levels of robustness and reliability. Participants found it more difficult to discuss complex issues virtually compared with onsite visits. The virtual accreditation reports were not any different to what would be expected if a face-to-face accreditation visit had been conducted; however, it was not possible using the virtual inspection to determine the appropriateness of facilities and clinic layout to support and facilitate trainee learning and supervision. Conclusions: Virtual accreditation of training posts in medical specialist training is viable in limited circumstances where there are no known complex training post-related issues and the site has not made substantial changes to clinic and theatre layout, equipment and facilities since the previous accreditation. What is known about the topic? All medical specialist colleges in Australia and New Zealand accredit the sites where training is delivered, usually by conducting periodic face‐to‐face visits. What does this paper add? This paper provides evidence that in limited circumstances, it is possible to accredit training posts virtually. What are the implications for practitioners? This paper provides an outline of issues to consider when planning virtual accreditation of training posts in medical specialist education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study reports on the characteristics of individuals conducting health service research (HSR) in Australia and New Zealand, the perceived accessibility of resources for HSR, the self-reported impact of HSR projects and perceived barriers to conducting HSR. Methods: A sampling frame was compiled from funding announcements, trial registers and HSR organisation membership. Listed researchers were invited to complete online surveys. Close-ended survey items were analysed using basic descriptive statistics. Goodness of fit tests determined potential associations between researcher affiliation and access to resources for HSR. Open-ended survey items were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: In all, 424 researchers participated in the study (22% response rate). Respondents held roles as health service researchers (76%), educators (34%) and health professionals (19%). Most were employed by a university (64%), and 57% held a permanent contract. Although 63% reported network support for HSR, smaller proportions reported executive (48%) or financial (26%) support. The least accessible resources were economists (52%), consumers (49%) and practice change experts (34%); researchers affiliated with health services were less likely to report access to statisticians (P < 0.001), economists (P < 0.001), librarians (P = 0.02) and practice change experts (P = 0.02) than university-affiliated researchers. Common impacts included conference presentations (94%), publication of peer-reviewed articles (87%) and health professional benefits (77%). Qualitative data emphasised barriers such as embedding research culture within services and engaging with policy makers. Conclusions: The data highlight opportunities to sustain the HSR community through dedicated funding, improved access to methodological expertise and greater engagement with end-users. What is known about the topic?: HSR faces several challenges, such as inequitable funding allocation and difficulties in quantifying the effects of HSR on changing health policy or practice. What does this paper add?: Despite a vibrant and experienced HSR community, this study highlights some key barriers to realising a greater effect on the health and well-being of Australian and New Zealand communities through HSR. These barriers include limited financial resources, methodological expertise, organisational support and opportunities to engage with potential collaborators. What are the implications for practitioners?: Funding is required to develop HSR infrastructure, support collaboration between health services and universities and combine knowledge of the system with research experience and expertise. Formal training programs for health service staff and researchers, from short courses to PhD programs, will support broader interest and involvement in HSR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]