Revision of institutional accreditation standards and processes in Iranian medical universities.

backgroundThe institutional accreditation standards were revised after the initial round of institutional accreditation and gaining experience while scrutinizing issues and complications. This research covers the steps needed to update and then compile the new standards, making the necessary changes in regulations, self-evaluation guides, external evaluation, ethics, and the required forms. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis comprehensive developmental study, conducted in two main phases from 2019 to 2022 at Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, employed a variety of rigorous methods. These included a thorough literature review, analysis of previous documents, gathering of gathering experts' opinions, and consensus techniques. In the first phase, standards were revised through meticulous steps such as a literature review, expert meetings, and a survey study among managers and faculty members of medical universities. In the second phase, regulations, forms, and guidelines were compiled during experts' meetings.

resultsIn the first phase, a draft of the standards, prepared based on previous accreditation experiences, universities feedback on standards, and review of 14 accreditation institution websites, in eight domains, 23 subdomains, and 94 standards. Notably, 75 of these standards were deemed mandatory, while 19 were classified as preferred. The prepared draft of the standards was then subjected to a three-stage survey. During this process, the National Accreditation Commission proposed one modification to the regulations and four alterations to the standards, along with accompanying explanations. Afterward, during the second and third review stages involving universities and managers, 14 standards were revised, two new standards were introduced, and seven explanations were appended. The finalization of mandatory and preferred standards was contingent upon attaining a 70% consensus on their necessity and clarity. Following approval by the Secretariat of the Council for Development, these standards were formally ratified. The regulations, self-assessment guide, external evaluation guide, ethics guide, and necessary forms were prepared and approved by the National Accreditation Commission in the second phase using data from literature reviews and experiences gained from the first round of accreditation.

conclusionThis study focused on developing standards and processes commissioned by the National Accreditation Commission, which will serve as the national institutional accreditation standards for evaluating medical universities. Additionally, these standards could be used as a basis for development of accreditation standards of those universities affiliated with the Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology.