Franco cavallo

A Short History of the PEER Activity XXVII ASPHER ANNUAL CONFERENCEYerevan September 17-20, 2005: 

A Short History of the PEER Activity XXVII ASPHER ANNUAL CONFERENCE Yerevan September 17-20, 2005 FRANCO CAVALLO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH University of Torino

Three Phases: a) Pioneer phase (1st to 7th review): ended with the review of reviewsb) Setting out a standard: searching for uniformity and objective criteria (8th to 14th) – Ended with publication of ASPHER criteria, 2001c) OSI-ASPHER project and systematic work on the basis of pre-defined criteria: 

Three Phases: a) Pioneer phase (1st to 7th review): ended with the review of reviews b) Setting out a standard: searching for uniformity and objective criteria (8th to 14th) – Ended with publication of ASPHER criteria, 2001 c) OSI-ASPHER project and systematic work on the basis of pre-defined criteria

Slide3: 

LIST OF REVIEWS COMPLETED PER YEAR 1993-2004

Slide4: 

LIST OF REVIEWS COMPLETED PER YEAR 1993-2004

Slide5: 

LIST OF REVIEWS COMPLETED PER YEAR 1993-2004

Characteristics of different phases(a) Pioneer Phase: 

Characteristics of different phases (a) Pioneer Phase It was a promoting phase: the main objective was to stimulate the need for … PH in Europe searching for an identity (culturally and professionally) First reviews in EEC (Czech republic, Slovakia, Poland): most anxious to join Europe Then two reviews in Germany, a country with the most consolidated tradition in PH but looking for new approaches Criteria were general, no attempt to formulate standards

Some reflections:: 

Some reflections: Judgement too discretional No referral to commonly agreed cultural areas of PH No referral for the reviewers to a specifically defined set of criteria agreed upon by the schools The process is expanding anyway and creating a great interest around Europe The EMPH project starts to develop, in great synergy with the PEER activity

The Decision:: 

The Decision: The Executive Board agrees to commission a Review of completed Reviews to a set of Independent experts (October 1997): Pat Evans Christian Rollet Theodor Abelin

Main Recommendations:: 

Main Recommendations: insist on a pre-review on the basis of the documents from the self-assessment organise a structured follow up try to manage a clearing house of best practices provide technical assistance to the schools concentrate on the review of the quality of self-assessment methods within the institutions not only focus on process but at least glimpse at outcomes more visible and systematic use of criteria

Characteristics of different phases(b) Developmental phase: 

Characteristics of different phases (b) Developmental phase Many prestigious European Schools get involved in the process, while the development in Eastern Europe goes on Similar developments in other scientific communities in the QA area Collaboration with EUPHA and EHMA The EMPH project stimulates the development of the QA process Following recommendations of experts, ASPHER develops, in collaboration with the Mérieux Foundation, a full set of criteria and standards

Some Reflections:: 

Some Reflections: A phase of intense cultural development and of internal debate Difficult to establish an autonomous and independent agency No real development of a ‘European’ need for accreditation Mostly, national structures are set up or consolidated

Characteristics of different phases(c) OSI-ASPHER Phase: 

Characteristics of different phases (c) OSI-ASPHER Phase The centre of gravity of the process is again in the Eastern part of Europe. The focus is on developing new PH schools with a European standard The process is centred not only on QA but also on favouring development of new schools The criteria set up by ASPHER are accepted and widely used as a standard for Quality Evaluation

Some Reflections:: 

Some Reflections: The pressure for accreditation on the other European schools is decreasing The EC leaves ‘harmonisation’ within the health area to the national governments The debate focuses again on setting up an autonomous agency giving stability and continuity to this activity beyond the OSI project

OPEN PROBLEMS: 

OPEN PROBLEMS … BUT IS THERE A REAL NEED FOR ACCREDITATION IN EUROPE?... (see Ramune Report…) … WHAT ABOUT THE ACTUAL LEVEL OF COLLABORATION WITH OUR ‘SISTER’ ASSOCIATIONS? WHAT HAVE WE LEARNT FROM THE OSI-ASPHER EXPERIENCE? (see Julien Report …)