How long to regain Accreditation?

[g8orlife]

---

Members don't see this ad.

While looking at GME Programs offered at hospitals, I noticed that some have residencies that either lost accreditation or are on probation. This topic is important to me, because I know that it is easier to match at a med school's affiliated hospital's GMEs; thus, I would love to be in a program that has multiple GMEs established.

Does anyone know the shortest amount of time it would take for a Residency program to either regain accreditation after losing it or be taken off probation? ... assuming the program does everything possible to correct their mistakes...

(BTW - I know that my specialty interests may change during medical school; but for now, I want to make the best decision possible😀)

 

[g8orlife]

Nevermind. Found it.😀
http://www.acgme.org/adspublic/

 

[g8orlife]

OK, scratch that. The Original question still stands:
"Does anyone know the shortest amount of time it would take for a Residency program to either be taken off probation or regain accreditation after losing it?"

That website shows the effective date of and length of accreditation and also the next upcoming accreditation visit/review .... BUT, I do not notice any information on those programs who either had their accreditation withdrawn (voluntarily or involuntarily).

Help please...

 

[NotAProgDirector]

If a program is on probation, that probation comes with a specific time length. Usually 1 year, but could be shorter if something very serious is found. At that next site visit, the program could be 1) returned to full accreditation, 2) be continued on probation, or 3) be withdrawn.

If a program is actually withdrawn, then it may never get restarted. The program could reapply for accreditation at any time, but would need to fix all of the problems before being taken seriously. In any case, I would assume that any program with a voluntary withdrawal would be closed forever, and those with involuntary withdrawal would likewise be closed forever or at least a long period of time. Programs get many, many warnings before being closed, so once forced closed is likely a systemic problem that will be difficult to fix.

 

[g8orlife]

If a program is on probation, that probation comes with a specific time length. Usually 1 year, but could be shorter if something very serious is found. At that next site visit, the program could be 1) returned to full accreditation, 2) be continued on probation, or 3) be withdrawn.

If a program is actually withdrawn, then it may never get restarted. The program could reapply for accreditation at any time, but would need to fix all of the problems before being taken seriously. In any case, I would assume that any program with a voluntary withdrawal would be closed forever, and those with involuntary withdrawal would likewise be closed forever or at least a long period of time. Programs get many, many warnings before being closed, so once forced closed is likely a systemic problem that will be difficult to fix.

I had no idea that withdrawn programs received many warnings beforehand ...hmm... This clears everything up and will help me with my decision-making.

Thanks, aProgDirector!!!👍

 

[Samoa]

You still might need to investigate further. I know of a surgery program that lost accreditation, and was reorganized and reaccredited within about 6 months. So it's not always death sentence for the program in question.

 

[g8orlife]

You still might need to investigate further. I know of a surgery program that lost accreditation, and was reorganized and reaccredited within about 6 months. So it's not always death sentence for the program in question.

Well then, I guess the best way to go about this would be to research programs' track histories. That way, I can see how quickly they respond to negative accreditation issues.

Thanks, Samoa!👍

 

[gutonc]

Well then, I guess the best way to go about this would be to research programs' track histories. That way, I can see how quickly they respond to negative accreditation issues.

Thanks, Samoa!👍

I still think that your primary thesis is flawed. Choosing a med school to attend based on the number of residency programs their affiliated hospital(s) have is probably the worst reason I can think of to pick a school.

If you do well on the Steps and your clinical rotations, you will have your pick of residency locations, regardless of either your chosen specialty or your medical school.

 

[JackADeli]

Well then, I guess the best way to go about this would be to research programs' track histories. That way, I can see how quickly they respond to negative accreditation issues...

Loss of accreditation implies the administration is NOT responsive and a failure of leadership. A successful re-organized, renewed accreditation is effectively a no track record, "new" or virgin operation.... because it usually means the previous failed leadership has been expelled and a new crew with no track record in that institution has taken over to rebuild and start over. I would caution against going to a program that has lost accreditation and is attempting to regain it with the same leadership that lost it!😱

As a pre-med, you should not be anticipating future programs with accreditation problems.

 

[g8orlife]

I still think that your primary thesis is flawed. Choosing a med school to attend based on the number of residency programs their affiliated hospital(s) have is probably the worst reason I can think of to pick a school.

If you do well on the Steps and your clinical rotations, you will have your pick of residency locations, regardless of either your chosen specialty or your medical school.

True. Even though I am confident that I won't do horrible on the boards and rotations/shelfs, that is in the future and out of my control. I'd like to make the best decision based on information available to me now and in my control.

Also, this is only one of many factors that I am using in choosing a program. After dissecting my current choices down to two, I had difficulty choosing between them and figured I needed to be more specific in my criteria.

Thanks for your input!

(In case you're wondering, the main criteria that I have used thus far are: location, cost of attendance, scholarship opportunities, board scores, percentage of graduates entering PC vs. sub-specialties, number of electives, rotation sites and if housing/travel cost is covered, years of establishment & reputation, class size, PBL vs. lecture-based curriculum ...)

 

[g8orlife]

Loss of accreditation implies the administration is NOT responsive and a failure of leadership. A successful re-organized, renewed accreditation is effectively a no track record, "new" or virgin operation.... because it usually means the previous failed leadership has been expelled and a new crew with no track record in that institution has taken over to rebuild and start over. I would caution against going to a program that has lost accreditation and is attempting to regain it with the same leadership that lost it!😱

As a pre-med, you should not be anticipating future programs with accreditation problems.

That is a very good point that I did not consider, yet. 👍

Thanks, Jack!

 

[Buzz Me]

I noticed you're interviewing at numerous DO schools...are you asking about specific DO residencies' accreditation statuses?

 

[g8orlife]

I noticed you're interviewing at numerous DO schools...are you asking about specific DO residencies' accreditation statuses?

I interviewed at more DO schools at the start of the application cycle since my AACOMAS was verified much earlier than AMCAS. I did research DO residencies using this helpful website: http://opportunities.osteopathic.org/search/search.cfm?searchType=1

But, no, I considered this question only after I received MD interview invites and considered their residency statuses.

 

[JackADeli]

It is probably just the cynic in me but this is my perspective on programs that loose accreditation and plan to regain it under the same leadership that lost it to begin with....

1. Loss of accreditation usually takes time and repeated failures to respond to accreditation reviewers. This usually entails the leadership being outright dense and ignoring warnings or being arrogant enough to believe they might be able to hide it. This leads to either option #2 or #3 below. Attempting to regain accreditation under the same looser leadership:
2. The looser leadership knows what bodies need to be hid. Of course, based on #1 above they have failed miserably to date to hide the bodies, but why not give the old college try again?
3. Maybe, the looser leadership saw the blessed virgin and now, seeing the light, has a New Years resolution... Of course, this too is an act of baseline arrogance. They still don't get that they are the problem and now believe they should remain and fix the problems they created.

Usually, IMHO, situations of looser leadership attempting to regain accreditation is a combination of all of the above. Ego, arrogance and failure "to get it" all play into the ~repeated violations/citations that culminate into loss of accreditation. Ego, arrogance, and failure "to get it" also plays into them remaining and somehow believe they are the best thing for the program.... they have already repeatedly failed.