AROUND ACCREDITATION

ARC Commissioners Review Changes to the
New Standards

By Patricia M. Dieter, MPA, PA-C
Gloria Stewart, EdD, PA-C, ATC
Suzanne York, PA-C, MPH
ARC-PA Commissioners

The revised Standards have been sent to all collaborating organizations for their endorsement. In this account we would like to review some important changes in the new Standards. As APAP’s liaisons to the ARC-PA and as program directors, we view these changes as helpful to programs conducting their day-to-day operations to define and manage curricula and evaluate programs and administration. Many of the changes to the Standards have been based on commentary from collaborating organizations at the beginning of the revision process and on continuing comments since the first draft of the revisions was published.

APAP’s comments that emphasized the value of diversity carried great weight with the ARC-PA members as they discussed the Standards. The last paragraph of the Introduction is now devoted entirely to the importance of diversity in educating PAs:

In the “A” standards, relating to administration, the ARC-PA responded to feedback and changed the requirement that program directors hold current NCCPA certification. The standard now states that if the program director is a PA, he or she must either hold current licensure or current NCCPA certification. Programs accredited prior to March 1, 2006, will be held to this standard only when a new program director is appointed. Thus, current program directors who are neither certified nor licensed will not be in jeopardy.

Section A of the Standards now also allows programs to take advantage of several physicians willing to share the medical director role, provided that each physician has defined roles and responsibilities.

In the “B” standards, which pertain to curriculum, the ARC-PA considered commentary at length having to do with documentation of supervised clinical practice experiences. The working copy of the new Standards, 9.23.04, contained a proposed standard that “The program must document that every student has clinical experiences to include medical care across the life span…,” and was followed by two separate lists of care relating to life phases and disciplines. APAP faculty reviewers were confused by this proposal and in the version approved in March 2005, the two lists were merged into one clear list of areas that must be included in clinical practice experience.

In the “C” standards, which relate to evaluation, the ARC-PA removed the requirement for programs to survey employers of program graduates. Response rates to employer surveys have been notoriously low, leading to data that is difficult to interpret and act on. Many programs have valiantly attempted to improve the response rates to their employer surveys, with little success. The removal of the requirement for employer surveys will allow programs to focus on more historically successful means for obtaining feedback about their graduates’ success in practice.

A minor change in the wording of one standard within Section C recognizes that the manner of evaluating clinical sites may require adaptation in order to provide regular and appropriate site evaluation. The new Standard C4.02 states that the program must apply comparable evaluation processes to clinical sites, regardless of geographic location. The definition of comparable as “similar but not necessarily identical” reflects that more than one method may be adequate to evaluate different sites.

The new standard relating to publication of first-time PANCE pass rates for programs’ five most recent graduating classes reflects the need for accountability to the public by providing information regarding outcomes. As a recognized Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) accrediting agency, ARC-PA adheres to national guidelines regarding program accountability. The trend of five years of PANCE pass rates will indicate a program’s ability to respond to this outcome measure through policy and curricular change.

In the final draft of the Standards, the wording and location of the standard pertaining to degree have been modified, for purposes of clarification. The intent of this standard, since the revision process began, has been to remain consistent with the natural evolution of the profession and PA education, while remaining sensitive to programs that were initially accredited under previous Standards. This issue is not new to the ARC-PA; it was discussed during earlier revisions, especially as the profession has struggled with deciding which degree should accompany the PA credential. While the commission recognizes that this standard has caused concern for some programs, we emphasize that currently accredited programs will not be held to the portion of Standard A1.01a relating to degree. Moreover, the members of the commission were unanimous in their approval of this standard.

Now that the ARC-PA is in the endorsement phase of the new Standards, there can be no change in the intent of any standard, nor can a standard be added or removed. As the commission awaits the endorsement of the new Standards by APAP, we would like to remind our APAP colleagues that, as in any process of change, not everyone within the ARC-PA’s collaborating organizations will be satisfied with all modifications. It is important, however, that we move forward with the understanding that all revisions have been made after serious and lengthy deliberation on the part of the ARC-PA and its commissioners. Partners collaborating with the ARC-PA include not only the PA organizations AAPA and APAP, but also the public and our physician collaborators who have a clear eye toward continued acceptance, establishment, and advancement of the PA profession within the medical practice community.

Main