1. Bologna through Medical Student Eyes Cheryl Terés AMSE September 2005 Cheryl Terés AMSE September 2005

2. Bologna Discussions in EMSA & IFMSA –February 2004: Joint WS in Ljubljana, Slovenia –July 2004: Follow-up WS in Megeve, France –August 2004: IFMSA GA in Ohrid, Macedonia –August 2004: EMS Council in London, UK –February 2005: EMS Council in Warsaw, PL –February 2004: Joint WS in Ljubljana, Slovenia –July 2004: Follow-up WS in Megeve, France –August 2004: IFMSA GA in Ohrid, Macedonia –August 2004: EMS Council in London, UK –February 2005: EMS Council in Warsaw, PL © 2005 Carl Savage

3. AMEE 2004 (Association for Medical Education in Europe) Katja Kovac & Hans-Jacob Westbye Published in Medical Teacher Summary Most points of the Bologna process are welcomed by the medical students of Europe. Medical education is in many ways in a special position when it comes to implementing the changes, and we would like to emphasize the importance of three points: 1.A common system for quality assurance of medical education in Europe would increase mobility and improve the quality of tomorrows physicians. 2. We are concerned about the negative implications of a two-cycle structure on medical education. Harmonization of medical education in Europe is crucial whatever system exists. 3. Student involvement is essential at all levels of the process. Katja Kovac & Hans-Jacob Westbye Published in Medical Teacher Summary Most points of the Bologna process are welcomed by the medical students of Europe. Medical education is in many ways in a special position when it comes to implementing the changes, and we would like to emphasize the importance of three points: 1.A common system for quality assurance of medical education in Europe would increase mobility and improve the quality of tomorrows physicians. 2. We are concerned about the negative implications of a two-cycle structure on medical education. Harmonization of medical education in Europe is crucial whatever system exists. 3. Student involvement is essential at all levels of the process.

4. Medical Students and Quality Assurance Quality Assurance Workshop Copenhagen, Denmark 6 th -10 th of July, 2005 Quality Assurance Workshop Copenhagen, Denmark 6 th -10 th of July, 2005

5. Medical Students and Quality Assurance Students from 15 countries Invited guests Workshop format Product: Statement on Quality Assurance Students from 15 countries Invited guests Workshop format Product: Statement on Quality Assurance

6. Quality “the characteristics of a function, process, system or object that is fulfilled when compared to predefined goals or standards” Quality “the characteristics of a function, process, system or object that is fulfilled when compared to predefined goals or standards” QAWS definitions:

7. Quality Assurance “a way to warrant that the predefined standards are met.” Quality Assurance “a way to warrant that the predefined standards are met.” QAWS definitions:

8. Quality Improvement “a continuous process to review, critique, and implement changes.” Quality Improvement “a continuous process to review, critique, and implement changes.” QAWS definitions:

9. QAWS Copenhagen Main conclusions WFME standards

10. QAWS Copenhagen Main conclusions Course evaluations

11. QAWS Copenhagen Main conclusions Transparency of the evaluation process

12. QAWS Copenhagen Main conclusions Core Curriculum

13. QAWS Copenhagen Main conclusions Licensing Exam

14. QAWS Copenhagen Main conclusions Student Involvement

15. QAWS Copenhagen Main conclusions Stakeholders

16. Quality Assessment does not automatically lead to Quality Improvement! On Quality Improvement…

17. There is a “lack of coherence in regular quality development processes – only a few institutions pursue a systematic institutionalised approach to quality development.” QA ≠ QI – S. Reichert & C. Tauch Trends IV: Main findings and conclusions presented to the EUA, March 31, 2005. – S. Reichert & C. Tauch Trends IV: Main findings and conclusions presented to the EUA, March 31, 2005.

18. Quality Improvement Quality Improvement methods need to be integrated into the system. To be useful, feedback must lead to ideas about what to change. The changes must then be tested to see if they enhance the education. Quality Improvement methods need to be integrated into the system. To be useful, feedback must lead to ideas about what to change. The changes must then be tested to see if they enhance the education.

19. Quality Quality Assurance Quality Improvement The Journey from Q to QI

20. Quality Assurance vs. Quality Improvement Do we have good quality? vs. How do we improve our quality? Do we have good quality? vs. How do we improve our quality?

21. The Scientific Method Medical Science Formulate a hypothesis Test the hypothesis Observe the results Draw conclusions Publish Medical Science Formulate a hypothesis Test the hypothesis Observe the results Draw conclusions Publish Improvement Science Plan an improvement Carry out (do) the improvement Study the results Act on the results Improvement Science Plan an improvement Carry out (do) the improvement Study the results Act on the results Plan – Do – Study – Publish Plan – Do – Study – Act

22. © 2005 Carl Savage

23. Any questions…

24. Improvement Model 1.What do we want to achieve? 2.How do we know that a change is an improvement? 3.What changes can we make that will result in an improvement? 4.Run a PDSA test cycle! P - D - S - A cycle (T Nolan et al)

25. Plan StudyDo Act Spinning the PDSA Wheel