The Evolution, Growth and Development between Regional versus National Accreditation - Research Paper Example

? Section/# Accreditation Models and a Comparison Between the Evolution, Growth and Development Between Regional versus National Accreditation Abstract: The following analysis will consider the means by which the accreditation models have come into being and whether or not a single accreditation model best serves the needs of the current healthcare system with regards to radiology. Moreover, as a means of such an analysis, the research will also seek to lay out a fundamental case for the strengths, weaknesses, and future outlook for both of the current and extant models that are exhibited within the relevant field/environment. As with so many aspects of the modern world, accreditation has experienced a large level of change and evolution/development within the past several decades. At its most very basic element, accreditation was a type of assurance in which the individuals that attained a certain degree, as well as the individuals that leveraged the services of the individuals who retain such degree, could be assured that a standard of quality was exhibited throughout the field and that she knowledge was possessed by all stakeholders. By ensuring that standards were met across the board, accreditation came to be a highly valuable tool by which a level of assurance and guarantee of underlying standards could be met. Although it may be tempting to state that accreditation is specifically aligned to one particular field of study, the fact of the matter is that accreditation has now spread and almost each and every field; representing standards metrics which must be met prior to degrees being for, or specializations being granted. As a means of understanding accreditation and the way in which it impacts upon the process of education, understanding, and quality assurance within the environment, this brief analysis will discuss the means by which both regional and national accreditation have evolved within the field of radiology an imaging as well as the key and distinct strengths, weaknesses, and drawbacks that each of these particular branches of accreditation engender. Moreover, a primary and curse discussion of the history and background of both of these types of accreditation will be analyzed prior to a comparison and contrast being engaged. Furthermore, it is the hope of this author that such an analysis will be enlightening to the reader with regards to helping to understand and appreciate the key levels of difference that both of these processes necessarily engage. The history of accreditation within the United States far predates the practice and/or application of radiology for imaging. Due to the fact that a large number of different secondary and postsecondary institutions within the United States were turning out more and more graduates each and every year in a litany of different programs, it came to be understood that it was necessary for educational stakeholders to insist on a level of uniformity upon which these graduates could be measured (Coupland, 2011). In effect, something of a differentiated approach to education was being engaged by the multitude of different institutions which did not help professional societies, or the workforce in general, with regards to a baseline of understanding between all of these graduates. In such a way, accreditation was born out of the absolute necessity to provide a baseline of standards and a level of trust and believe within the general populace that would be integrating with their services in the economy. As a result of this extent need, stakeholders within secondary and post secondary education began to develop the very first semblance of accreditation with regards to what was termed as regional accreditation. This regional accreditation, still practiced to a certain extent within the current environment, was, at that time, the most logical approach to seeking to engage stakeholders with a better and more actionable understanding of uniformity within the system. In such a way, regional accreditation was born by the efforts of educational stakeholders reaching out to fellow educational stakeholders in geographically proximal locations and seeking to define a level and baseline of uniformity between their programs. Likewise, by engaging in such a level of uniformity in a baseline of understanding, graduates of these programs were able to represent a standard of education that it previously not been realized. Ultimately, as time went on, these regional accreditations group expanded to include and incorporate more individuals, more stakeholders, and more universities/colleges/technical schools. It must be understood by the reader that regional accreditation was popular not only due to the demand that was existent in the society, but also due to the fact that the period in time in which regional accreditation came to such a high level of prominence was a distinct. In American history in which it was not oftentimes common for individuals to travel out of state, or even out of County to achieve a secondary or post secondary education nor to travel outside of their state/region to obtain employment. As such, regional accreditation was perfectly suited to the environment and needs of the particular time which it was developed. Although it is difficult to state that there is any particular point in time in which a clear and definitive shift was engaged with regards to movement away from regional accreditation towards national accreditation, it is the argument of this author that the most monumental shift with regards to this took place in the year 1952. This year has been singled out due to the fact that it was the first year in which the United States government engaged and legislated what came to be known as “the G.I. Bill”. Within such a bill, the United States government allowed or individuals who had successfully and honorably completed their military service to return to civilian life by engaging in higher education (Kunkel, 2004). This was of course done as a means of reimbursing the soldier for his service as well as providing the economy as a whole with a more well trained and knowledgeable workforce. However, in order to effectively engage in such a level of interaction with the many secondary and postsecondary schools within the United States, it became necessary for accreditation on a national level to begin to play a prominent role. The need for this is quite obvious. Due to the fact that the government was now in the process of disbursing payments to educational institutions around the country, there should be some assurance that these educational institutions were able to engender a degree of professionalism and standards within the particular programs they offered. It should further be understood by the reader that even though this movement marked the beginning of the national accreditation movement, government in and of itself cannot and should not be understood to be the sole determinant of national accreditation. The fact of the matter is that the lion’s share of national accreditation that exists within the current environment is the responsibility and impetus of the private sector. Recognizing that accreditation within the region was effective in providing a level of standardized nation and assurance of quality, private stakeholders in various fields began pushing for the creation of a national accreditation standard for a litany and a variety of different fields (Ewell, 2011). As a result of this, the growth and development of the national accreditation process has been exponential within the past several decades. Within such a manner, the remainder of this analysis will briefly discuss some of the positive and negative impacts that both of these approaches engender. In so doing, it is the hope of the author that the reader will come to a more appreciable understanding with respect to the ways in which accreditation of these two varieties continues to exist within the environment and speak to specific needs of the stakeholders in all. Rather than determining which one is effectively better, the ultimate intent will merely be to leverage the strengths and weaknesses of both as a means of underscoring the way in which they can both continue to be relevant within the current environment of radiological and imagery professionals. Rather than starting with a level of differential between the two, it must be understood that both regional and national accreditation are needs based. What is meant by this is the fact that the accreditation model engaged in by a litany of different stakeholders at the regional or national is meant to provide standardization and quality assurance; regardless scope. Firstly, it must be understood that the regional approach is more effective with regards to dealing with particular nuances and needs of the regional level. With respect to imagery or radiology, a regional level of accreditation means that the course of study and the regional realities of radiology and imagery can rapidly be reflected into the course dynamics and teaching styles that are engaged within the accreditation process. As further strength is necessarily with regards to the fact that a regional accreditation process create something of a regional identity among the healthcare partners as they are aware of what to expect from a quality of service standpoint. However, one of the most important aspects of regional accreditation which will be discussed is with regards to the fact that regional accreditation necessarily engenders an understanding and belief that a degree of rapid change and needs can be quickly instituted within such accreditation models. Within such a way, the level to which a regional accreditation program to be responsive to key needs and realities of the environment within which operates far exceeds the level of responsiveness that a national accreditation program within the same scope might offer. Anyone familiar with the level of change in both society and technology engenders is keenly aware of the fact that curriculum changes in key tweaks and nuances must continually be made to any program as a means of keeping it relevant to the current environment and/or the population serves. In such a way, regional accreditation is able to do this in exceptional manner. Although regional accreditation most certainly engenders the aforementioned strengths that have been discussed with the analysis, it also engenders several distinct drawbacks; some of which are intrinsically linked to aspects of the aforementioned strengths. The first of these is necessarily with regards to the fact that regional accreditation create something of level of confusion in isolation with regards to the existence of and appreciation for a greater national system. In fact, and if process and utilization of a regional system serves to take away from the level of uniformity which a national system, or supra-regional system could otherwise provide. Likewise, secondary drawback is with respect to the fact that a regional system stands in stark contrast to the move towards uniformity and globalization that is sweeping the medical profession, as well as many other professions. One does not need to be an analyst at the current labor market to realize the fact that individuals from around the country are traveling outside of their regions and outside of their states, changing jobs multiple times, and oftentimes differentiating their career in a manner they would otherwise not engage if they were accredited from a regional standpoint. In such a way, regional accreditation necessarily constrains the individual to operating and working within the particular region in which they have lived and/or studied. Similarly, as might be expected, perhaps the greatest drawback of all is with regards to the actual definition and purpose of what accreditation is meant for. Within a regional framework, the student/practitioner is only able to achieve a level of appreciation and standing within a specific geographic region. Much the same way, stakeholders within society, or the clients who will use such a good or service that these professionals can provide, will be wholly uninformed and unappreciated of a level of regional accreditation as compared to one that is more national in scope. Conversely, the national accreditation programs help to create a level of uniformity in delivery of service that is unchallenged. Due to the scope and size of such a domestic/national accreditation program can offer, this allows for a direct correlation of benefit both to the individual stakeholder/consumer within society as well as the overall level of job opportunities and recognition/benefits that the particular form of accreditation necessarily did notes. As can be inferred from the inverse of the weakness that was attributed to regional accreditation previous section, national accreditation necessarily allows for far greater job opportunity for the job applicant/graduate (O’Leary et al, 2006). Due to fact that the current model of education and employment specifies that the current graduate will hold around 4 to 5 jobs during their lifetime, this particular model of accreditation is more useful due to the fact that it can easily be applied in diverse regions of the nation; rather than being constrained to a specific geographically defined region. Accordingly, such a national accreditation standard sincerely applies well to the globalized and domestically interwoven nature current healthcare profession in the world in general. With regards specific weaknesses in such an approach engenders, these can of course also be understood within the framework of the inverse of the strengths that the regional accreditation program, specified above, denoted. The first of these is with respect to the fact that a national accreditation program is not capable of speaking to the regionally specific needs to the same level and extent that a regional accreditation program (Wood, 2006). Moreover, it is necessarily set in stone and unresponsive changes and challenges that are oftentimes demanded at the local level. In this manner, a trade-off between universality and efficiency/utility for the degree holder and society/the consumer in general can clearly be evidenced with respect to the national accreditation program. As a result of the foregoing analysis, it is the understanding and belief of this author that even though national accreditation program necessarily engenders a further level of strength and overall importance to the current model of education and work realities, it is nonetheless necessary for educational institutions around the country seek to engage with both models of accreditation. The rationale behind this is of course the fact that the key strengths that the regional approach offers, although somewhat diminished as a result of the current realities of the globalized nature in healthcare, demand that both models continue to be engaged. This presents a particular difficulty with respect to the fact that by continuing to engage in both levels of accreditation, it becomes doubtful whether one or the other will never cease to exist. Although such a trade-off me necessarily be negative, the damage which would be done to society, and the many stakeholders within the profession already hold levels of regional accreditation would be the revocable he damaged if such accreditation simply evaporated and disappeared. Accordingly, regardless of whether or not one or the other of these accreditation approaches is necessarily flawed, the accrediting institution, and the educational institutions which cooperate with them, must be mindful of the fact that there are a high number of individuals are ready within the workforce have alternate forms of accreditation. Therefore, seeking to merely dismiss one or the other in terms of promoting a different paradigm would have disastrous effects, not only for the workforce in general, but for the societal stakeholders who depend upon these professionals, and their levels of accreditation, perform key services in the economy. References Coupland, D. (2011). The Cost of Accreditation and Certification Programs. Academic Questions, 24(2), 209-221. doi:10.1007/s12129-011-9225-z Ewell, P. T. (2011). Regional Accreditation Redux. Assessment Update, 23(5), 11-16. Kunkel, R. C., & National Council for Accreditation (2004). Regional and National Voluntary Accreditation. "The Place and Appropriate Future of National Accreditation.". O'Leary, P., Breheny, N., Reid, G., Charles, T., & Emery, J. (2006). Regional variations: Stepping towards a national policy framework. Australian & New Zealand Journal Of Gynaecology, 46(5), 427-432. doi:10.1111/j.1479-828X.2006.00629.x Wood, A. (2006). Demystifying Accreditation: Action Plans for a National or Regional Accreditation. Innovative Higher Education, 31(1), 43-62. doi:10.1007/s10755-006-9008-6 Research Outline: Abstract Introduction of subject matter I: History and Development of Accreditation in United States A: Reference to needs based development B: Discussion of environmental factors that encouraged development of accreditation within the historical model C: Unique limitations that exist with regards to the individual schools conferring degrees based upon their own beliefs II: In depth analysis of regional accreditation A: First form of accreditation that came to be evidenced B: Born out of a need to provide a level of subject matter expertise to the regional workforce C: served as a way to provide singularity and uniformity within working regions of the nation’s economy D: Had some key and instrumental drawbacks that were soon to be addressed by a newer model III: In depth analysis of the national accreditation model A: Born out of a need to provide standardization for the federal government in dispensing student aid packages B: Discussion of GI Bill C: Able to meet the needs of individuals within the economy that would train in one place and practice in another D: Especially relevant to individuals within technical fields as well as the nursing and medicine. IV: Discussion of key drawbacks of each A: Analysis of key strengths and drawbacks of the regional approach to accreditation B: Analysis of key strengths and drawbacks of the national approach to accreditation V: Discussion and analysis of which one is the superior plan and which one should be continued with regards to further certification in radiology A: Merits of the two pronged approach B: Analysis of whether or not a singular approach would benefit the most number of stakeholders or whether discontinuing one would provide the greatest level of harm to the field in question Conclusion Read More