Claire Palermo5, Mrs Kristen Foley2, Ali Dymott1, Stacie Attrill2, Gillian Nisbet3, Caitlan Mclean2, Merrolee Penman4
1Flinders University, Australia, 2University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia, 3The University of Sydney, Australia, 4Curtin University, Australia, 5Monash University, Australia
Abstract:
Background:
Accreditation standards have been suggested to impede flexibility and innovation in placement. We aimed to explore how accreditation structures and systems influence allied health placement capacity.
Method:
Grounded in realism, we undertook a documentary analysis of 94 accreditation standards or processes documents across 19 allied health disciplines. Data extracted including classification, placement experience, practice area, time requirements, expected outcomes of placement, supervision requirements, assessment practices, and placement preparation. Data were synthesised iteratively as to what influences placement capacity, with expert input from an expert advisory group and refined based on feedback and review of literature.
Results:
Key drivers for placement capacity were found to be length, practice areas, supervision, and assessment requirements. Outcome focussed accreditation standards (i.e. demonstration of competence) rather than inputs (i.e. time or place specifics), support flexible, innovative approaches to placement design and delivery. Professional practice advancement quickly surpasses accreditation standard reviews leading to standards somewhat being out-of-step with practice needs.
Discussion:
Accreditation standards related to placements must consider allied health workforce needs and evolve to ensure placement can expand to build workforce capacity. Accreditation bodies, universities and professions need to work together to deeply consider changing accreditation standards to find the balance between public safety and meeting workforce and community health needs.