1. Formative evaluation for Faculties of medicine About CIDMEF experience Arkhangelsk, 2012 1 Jacques Roland

2. Cidmef : International Conference of the deans of French speaking Faculties of medicine Arkhangelsk, 2012 2

3. CIDMEF spread Arkhangelsk, 2012 3 3 8 4 21 3 3 42 countries 120 faculties of medicine 2

4. CIDMEF Evaluation Council First draft : beginning of the 90’ in Canada (Quebec) : Jean Mathieu, Pierre Potvin, Tewfik Nawar. First experiments : 1993 Tunis, Louvain (UCL), Beyrouth Finalization of a politic of evaluation : 1995 Adoption of basic norms : 2007 Brussel Founding of a quality label CIDMEF : 2010 Lille Arkhangelsk, 2012 4

5. Exchanges with other organisations AERES : French official agency for evaluation LCME : liaison committee in medical education (Canada, USA) (normes) WFME : world federation for medical education (normes) FAIMER : foundation for the advancement of international medical education and research Global Health Initiative (USA) Arkhangelsk, 2012 5

6. Principles of the Cidmef evaluation Volontary action, never imposed Importance of self-evaluation Formative process only (without any sanction) No purpose of comparison with others faculties or of standardization Arkhangelsk, 2012 6

7. Three main questions for the Faculty Are the missions and the objectives well defined ? Does it have the necessary means to reach these objectives? Can it bring the proof that the objectives have been achieved ? Arkhangelsk, 2012 7

8. Importance of the objectives There is no good wind for the seaman who don’t know where he sails (Sénèque) If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will do (Alice in wonderland, Lewis Carroll) Arkhangelsk, 2012 8

9. Institutional objectives Set up by the « society », Department of Education, of Health, University… Three fields : Education, Research, Provision of services Make Reference to values : Universal values : respect of the Human Rights and of Life Basic values of health systems (quality, equity, efficiency) Social responsability of medical Faculties Arkhangelsk, 2012 9

10. Derived and specific objectives - Precise - Operational - Ready to be checked Arkhangelsk, 2012 10

11. Cidmef basic norms Universal, Minimums must be shared by all the medical schools Can be used like quality criteria for a Cidmef labelling Arkhangelsk, 2012 11

12. Evaluation steps 1. Local decision and request to the CIDMEF 2. Preliminary visit 3. Self-evaluation 4. Visit of the external commission 5. Report 6. Follow-up Arkhangelsk, 2012 12

13. 1. Local decision crucial ! Evaluation is going to provoke a great deal of efforts To make the decision, a strong support from all is required and in particular : From a large majority of the teachers From the local and national Authorities Arkhfrom theangelsk, 2012 13

14. 2. Preliminary visit (1) By a limited external group (2 people) Meeting with : authorities teachers employees students Arkhangelsk, 2012 14

15. 2.Preliminary visit (2) : objectives Information Reassuring Motivation Planning Specific status of the students (private meetings) Arkhangelsk, 2012 15

16. 3. Self-evaluation (1) Fields Governance Programs Continued medical formation Research Teachers Students Administration Financial and material resources Arkhangelsk, 2012 16 In each field: Description of the staff Description of the means In each field self-analysis Opinion about strengths and weaknesses Internal propositions for corrections, reforms, advices and plans

17. 3. Self-evaluation (2) : the curriculum  Description of contents, duration, management of teaching,  Balance between Care Medicine, Prevention, Public Health  Balance between theory and practice, importance of autonomy  Check the processes of internal evaluation for teaching and programs rkhangelsk, 2012 17

18. 3. Self-evaluation (3) : professionalism  Connection with society, medical profession,other health professions,  Approaches to ethical and deontologic aspects during curriculum  Reality of formations to communication, decision, adaptation of behaviour rkhangelsk, 2012 18

19. 3. Self-evaluation (4) : strategy Direct objectives Obtain clarification about mission and objectives Writing the report of self-evaluation for sending to the external commission rkhangelsk, 2012 19 Meta-objectives Generate a collective thought about shared values, missions and objectives Mobilize the staff for a commun policy Favorise connection in and between the departments Develop or create a spirit of evaluation

20. 3. Self-evaluation (5) : Students’ specific case The report of students is sent directly to the experts of the external commission (no transmission to the local authorities) Arkhangelsk, 2012 20

21. 4. External commission (1) : composition Five members three foreigners, two from the country All members are teachers of medecine, with collective responsabilites in their University Designation of a president and a secretary within the commission Arkhangelsk, 2012 21

22. 4. External commission (2) : casting President : leader, allocate tasks to each member, responsible for synthesis of the report Secretary : connections between the commission and the Faculty, research of documentation Each member is responsible for a part of the evaluation and then of the final report. Arkhangelsk, 2012 22

23. 4. External commission (3) : material conditions Members of the external commission are not paid, the journey is paid by the Cidmef, the stay charges by the evaluated Faculty The evaluated Faculty is responsible for the organization Arkhangelsk, 2012 23

24. 4. External evaluation (4) : Progress Dean and President of University are met individually Meetings with all the officials, persons in charge for teaching, research, administration, students, professional associations.. Stay during 3 to 5 days according to the importance of the Faculty. Arkhangelsk, 2012 24

25. 4. External evaluation (5) : investigation  The report of self-evaluation guides the investigation : choice of the persons to be questioned, clarifications to be obtained, further fields to be explored  Comparison between the opinions expressed on the same subjects by different actors. Arkhangelsk, 2012 25

26. 4. External evaluation (6) : Preliminary report At the end of the stay, the external commission presents to the Dean and to the President of University a short report. This report describes the main conclusions and the remaining interrogations. Authorities’ answers will be used for the final report. Arkhangelsk, 2012 26

27. 5. Definitive report Each member of the external commission writes his part of the report and sends it to the president of the external commission. The last step is to harmonize the different chapters, then to highlight strengths and weaknesses in a specific chapter before giving recommandations and advices. The definitive report is sent only to the Dean and to the President of University. The spread of the document is done under their own responsability. Arkhangelsk, 2012 27

28. 5. Follow-up A new visit is organized within the two following years to check the effects of the evaluation Arkhangelsk, 2012 28

29. Global assessment 38 Faculties evaluated Encountered difficulties :  Impossibility to finalize (2)  Opposition of Authorities (2)  Difficulties to put the advices into practice  New Dean, new President… But in 34 cases, a regarded tool for imposing change and moving forward Arkhangelsk, 2012 29

30. Conclusion We have the choice… Arkhangelsk, 2012 30