COCA Standards Revision

[scpod]

---

Members don't see this ad.

The Standards review Committe for COCA has requested public commentary for proposed revisions that will be reviewed at the May 2010 meeting. If you have interest in commenting, please go here:


https://www.do-online.org/index.cfm?PageID=acc_predoc_StandardsRevisions

 

[JaggerPlate]

The Standards review Committe for COCA has requested public commentary for proposed revisions that will be reviewed at the May 2010 meeting. If you have interest in commenting, please go here:


https://www.do-online.org/index.cfm?PageID=acc_predoc_StandardsRevisions

Adding things as I go through it right now:

-I hope they aren't making standards more lax in any sense of the term

-It is the responsibility of the COM administration to review
the credentials of all academically credentialed or approved
faculty to determine that they are qualified. The training
environment at affiliated educational sites should also be
reviewed to guarantee that they provide students, at a
minimum, an appropriate number of clinical presentations,
appropriate supervision, and opportunities to interact with
other healthcare professionals.

I like that one.

-4. A charter, or evidence of support for approval to grant the Doctor of Osteopathy (D.O.) or Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.) degree from the appropriate state agency.

Hasn't President Wickless said in multiple posts that any school granting Doctor of Osteopathy should be reported to him, as they are all supposed to be Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine ?

-6. Written verification about the educational planning and progress toward providing for clerkship training opportunities sufficient in number for the clinical curricular experiences of the applicant

I wish 'progress towards' was more of an aggressive term.

- Sounds like they are making it quicker and easier to open a COM

- Didn't really read the 'self-study' section, which seemed to have the most changes ... but the least relevant to actually accrediting schools.

- Seems like a few of the responsibilities that used to belong to the AOA with acredit reports, et al, are now going to COCA. Wonder if there is any impact to this ???



Eh, altogether ... doesn't seem like there is much change. Schools may be able to get going a bit quicker (though it is hard to tell from the language as it can be tough to decipher these type of documents). No mention of amendments to the language that allows for-profit.

 

[Medbear]

I personally don't think that there should be a for-profit professional school in the U.S that grants any sort of terminal degree.

Furthermore, while I've yet to read the email on this, I do hope they add more stringent rules to clinical clerkship quality and availability.

 

[JaggerPlate]

I personally don't think that there should be a for-profit professional school in the U.S that grants any sort of terminal degree.

Furthermore, while I've yet to read the email on this, I do hope they add more stringent rules to clinical clerkship quality and availability.

I don't think you'll see many people supporting the for-profit model. To me, the report didn't seem to change much. There was a few new blurbs about clinicals, but most of the changes seemed to be the timing of accrediting schools, and changes to 'self review' type policy thing. I dunno. Like I said, it's kind of hard to read through the language (for me at least). I'd be curious to hear other people's opinions.

 

[Siggy]

-4. A charter, or evidence of support for approval to grant the Doctor of Osteopathy (D.O.) or Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.) degree from the appropriate state agency.

Hasn't President Wickless said in multiple posts that any school granting Doctor of Osteopathy should be reported to him, as they are all supposed to be Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine ?

Pick and choose your battles and when they happen. If you change the accreditation rules to eliminate "Doctor of Osteopathy," provided that there are still schools using that title, then you are running the risk of someone reading the standards strictly and literally and not approving students from that school for licensure. The proper place to have a battle over the terms osteopathy v osteopathic medicine at established schools is at the schools themselves, not through accreditation.

 

[JaggerPlate]

Pick and choose your battles and when they happen. If you change the accreditation rules to eliminate "Doctor of Osteopathy," provided that there are still schools using that title, then you are running the risk of someone reading the standards strictly and literally and not approving students from that school for licensure. The proper place to have a battle over the terms osteopathy v osteopathic medicine at established schools is at the schools themselves, not through accreditation.

I get that, for sure. The only reason it struck me as odd is because of this
http://blogs.do-online.org/aoapresident.php?itemid=36421
post by President Wickless. It was just essentially, exactly opposite of what he was specifically addressing in this post ... so it was confusing.

 

[group_theory]

COCA should change the language so that it matches the LCME rules on for-profit educational company. It won't affect RVU but it will prevent future new for-profit DO schools.