• Innes SI
• Cope V
• Leboeuf-Yde C
• Walker BF

• Accreditation / standards
• Affiliation / Murdoch University. College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education
• Affiliation / University of Southern Denmark. Institute for Regional Health Research
• Affiliation(G) / Australia / Western Australia / Murdoch
• Education, Chiropractic / standards
• Interviews as Topic
• Open Access Document
• Professional Competence
• Qualitative Research

Background:The aim of this study was to report on key informant opinions of Councils on Chiropractic Education(CCE) regarding recent research findings reporting on improving accreditation standards and processes forchiropractic programs (CPs)

Methods:This qualitative study employed in-depth semi-structured interviews with key experienced personnelfrom the five CCEs in June and July of 2018. The interviews consisted of open-ended questions on a range of issuessurrounding accreditation, graduate competency standards and processes. All interviews were audio-recorded, andtranscribed verbatim. The transcripts were analysed to develop codes and themes using thematic analysistechniques assisted by NVivo coding software. The study followed the COREQ guidelines for qualitative studies.

Results:Six themes were isolated from the interview transcripts; they were: professional differences; keep it in thefamily; to focus on outcomes or be prescriptive?; more resources please; inter-profession integration; and CPsmaking ends meet. Most respondents saw a need for CCEs standards and processes to improve interdisciplinaritywhile at the same time preserving the‘uniqueness’of chiropractic. Additionally, informants viewed CCEs as carryingout their functions with limited resources while simultaneously dealing with vocal disparate interest groups. Diverseviews were observed on how CCEs should go about their business of assessing chiropractic programs foraccreditation and re-accreditation.

Conclusions:An overarching confounder for positive changes in CCE accreditation standards and processes is theinability to clearly define basic and fundamental terms such as‘chiropractic’and its resultant scope of practice. Thisis said to be because of vocal, diverse and disparate interest groups within the chiropractic profession. Silence ornebulous definitions negotiated in order to allow a diversity of chiropractic practice to co-exist, appears to havecomplicated and hindered the activities of CCEs. Recommendations are made including an adoption of anevidence-based approach to accreditation standards and processes and the use of expertise from other healthprofessions. Further, the focus of attention should be moved away from professional interests and toward that ofprotection of the public and the patient. View Part 2

Author keywords: Accreditation — Chiropractic — Competence — Qualitative

Author affiliations: SI, VC, CL-Y, BFW: College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Australia; CL-Y: Institute for Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

This abstract is reproduced with the permission of the publisher; click on the above link for free full text. PubMed Record