Global accreditation practices for accelerated medically trained clinicians: a view of five countries

BACKGROUND: Shortages and maldistribution of healthcare workers persist despite efforts to increase the number of practitioners. Evidence to support policy planning and decisions is essential. The World Health Organization has proposed National Health Workforce Accounts (NHWA) to facilitate human resource information systems for effective health workforce planning and monitoring. In this study, we report on the accreditation practices for accelerated medically trained clinicians in five countries: Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malaysia, and Mongolia.

METHOD: Using open-ended survey responses and document review, information about accreditation practices was classified using NHWA indicators. We examined practices using this framework and further examined the extent to which the indicators were appropriate for this cadre of healthcare providers. We developed a data extraction tool and noted any indicators that were difficult to interpret in the local context.

RESULTS: Accreditation practices in the five countries are generally aligned with the WHO indicators with some exceptions. All countries had standards for pre-service and in-service training. It was difficult to determine the extent to which social accountability and social determinants of health were explicitly part of accreditation practices as this cadre of practitioners evolved out of community health needs. Other areas of discrepancy were interprofessional education and continuing professional development.

DISCUSSION: While it is possible to use NHWA module 3 indicators there are disadvantages as well, at least for accelerated medically trained clinicians. There are aspects of accreditation practices that are not readily coded in the standard definitions used for the indicators. While the indicators provide detailed definitions, some invite social desirability bias and others are not as easily understood by practitioners whose roles continue to evolve and adapt to their health systems.

CONCLUSION: Regular review and revision of indicators are essential to facilitate uptake of the NHWA for planning and monitoring healthcare providers.