Trouble at KansasCom

[Goro]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Having taken part in prep for a site visit to my school,
I can tell you that KS"com" has some really serious issues on the agenda. Especially Element 2.2, which they clearly are in violation of.

 

[baby_shark]

All of this stems from KansasCOM’s administration not listening to the student body for months and months and addressing internal issues promptly given how incompetent they are. Trust has been severely damaged. Moving forward, instead of bringing concerns to the administration first, students will start going directly to COCA and other external bodies. Even if the school addresses these violations now, the loss of confidence means that every future misstep made by the administration will be noted and likely turned into external complaints. I hope that KansasCOM's administration can learn from this and use it as an opportunity to rebuild trust and strengthen support channels so that students feel heard and protected.

 

[Starr_key]

When students file a complaint to COCA, is it anonymous? I know for LCME it is not.

Admin is always going to admin. I think I've seen only a few schools where admin truly cares about its students. Kansas COM was just stupidly even more incompetent than your typical admin.

 

[ToKingdomCome]

Is this going to shut the school down if COCA deems the complaints to be unfixable ?

 

[LSTR]

When students file a complaint to COCA, is it anonymous? I know for LCME it is not.

Admin is always going to admin. I think I've seen only a few schools where admin truly cares about its students. Kansas COM was just stupidly even more incompetent than your typical admin.

No, it is not anonymous. Complaints must have the person's full name, and they must be currently affiliated with the school in some way, iirc.

Is this going to shut the school down if COCA deems the complaints to be unfixable ?

So, looking at the COCA policies under Commission Actions... (https://osteopathic.org/index.php?aam-media=/wp-content/uploads/Commission-Actions-Policy.pdf)

In the case of a pre-accreditated school advancing to accreditation, they can award accreditation but with certain comments on the degree with which the COM might not be meeting the standards:

• Accreditation: This status indicates that a COM is compliant with all standards. However, there may be unmet non-core elements that must be addressed through progress reports. Initial Accreditation is granted for six years. Monitoring is conducted through submission of the COCA annual report; a mid-cycle report is due in the third year of accreditation.
• Accreditation With Finding: This status indicates that a COM is non-compliant with one standard, including non-compliance with one or more core elements within a standard, requiring ongoing monitoring through progress reports, annual reports, and other activities that the Commission deems appropriate. For COMs with this status, accreditation will be granted for five years. Monitoring is conducted through submission of the COCA annual report; a mid-cycle report is due in the third year of accreditation.
• Accreditation With Monitoring: This status indicates that a COM is non-compliant with two standards, including non-compliance with one or more core elements within each standard, requiring ongoing monitoring through progress reports, annual reports, and other activities the Commission deems appropriate. For COMs with this status, accreditation will be granted for four years. Monitoring is conducted through submission of the COCA annual report; a mid-cycle report is due in the second year of accreditation.
• Accreditation With Warning: This status indicates that a COM is non-compliant with more than three but no more than five standards, including non-compliance with one or more core elements within each standard, and that the COM exhibits weaknesses that threaten the program’s quality. Ongoing monitoring will occur via progress reports and any other monitoring the Commission deems appropriate. For schools with this status, accreditation will be granted for two years. The mid-cycle report will be submitted with the annual report. The Commission will specify the unmet accreditation standard(s) and specify the procedures for monitoring compliance.
• Accreditation With Probation: This status is granted when a COM is non-compliant with more than five standards, including non-compliance with one or more core elements within each standard, which exhibits serious weaknesses such that the quality of the program is jeopardized. The COCA will specify the unmet accreditation standard(s) and the procedures for monitoring compliance.

While shutting a COM down is not outside the realm of possibility, I feel like a likely outcome after graduating 2026 is that we will land in either the fourth or fifth category if no changes are made before then, which would make the amount of time accredited before needing needing to renew much shorter, and the school would be more tightly monitored.

 

[ToKingdomCome]

No, it is not anonymous. Complaints must have the person's full name, and they must be currently affiliated with the school in some way, iirc.


So, looking at the COCA policies under Commission Actions... (https://osteopathic.org/index.php?aam-media=/wp-content/uploads/Commission-Actions-Policy.pdf)

In the case of a pre-accreditated school advancing to accreditation, they can award accreditation but with certain comments on the degree with which the COM might not be meeting the standards:


While shutting a COM down is not outside the realm of possibility, I feel like a likely outcome after graduating 2026 is that we will land in either the fourth or fifth category if no changes are made before then, which would make the amount of time accredited before needing needing to renew much shorter, and the school would be more tightly monitored.

COCA low standards are low bar

 

[LSTR]

Yeah, seems that way

 

[Goro]

Is this going to shut the school down if COCA deems the complaints to be unfixable ?

They have that power, but I've never seen it applied in my lifetime, for MD or DO schools. Schools would have to be extremely malignant to the point of criminal activity for a school to be shut down.

Receiving the the worst form of accreditation status, that of accreditation with probation, should scare off enough pre-meds who would be willing to apply to the school, that would make the school's Administration or rather the Board of Regents think twice about maintaining the status quo.

 

[Starr_key]

No, it is not anonymous. Complaints must have the person's full name, and they must be currently affiliated with the school in some way, iirc.


So, looking at the COCA policies under Commission Actions... (https://osteopathic.org/index.php?aam-media=/wp-content/uploads/Commission-Actions-Policy.pdf)

In the case of a pre-accreditated school advancing to accreditation, they can award accreditation but with certain comments on the degree with which the COM might not be meeting the standards:


While shutting a COM down is not outside the realm of possibility, I feel like a likely outcome after graduating 2026 is that we will land in either the fourth or fifth category if no changes are made before then, which would make the amount of time accredited before needing needing to renew much shorter, and the school would be more tightly monitored.

That's what I thought! How likely is it that COCA and/or LCME shares the student's info with the school?

Because I wonder if admin is bitter enough to retaliate against those students.

 

[Dorsey DO]

@Goro have you ever seen any lawyer, governing body ever really sanction a school, or it's always just talk that never comes to fruition? Also, at that level, how exactly does a lawyer/governing body override the school; is it a power struggle, shouting match, etc?

 

[Mr.Smile12]

@Goro have you ever seen any lawyer, governing body ever really sanction a school, or it's always just talk that never comes to fruition? Also, at that level, how exactly does a lawyer/governing body override the school; is it a power struggle, shouting match, etc?

A school would sue to keep itself in business rather than get shut down.

In another forum, we're chatting about

Lincoln Memorial sues AVMA over accreditation

Veterinary school on probation claims conspiracy to reduce competition

news.vin.com

 

[Goro]

@Goro have you ever seen any lawyer, governing body ever really sanction a school, or it's always just talk that never comes to fruition? Also, at that level, how exactly does a lawyer/governing body override the school; is it a power struggle, shouting match, etc?

Pharmacy schools have been shut down by accreditors recently, and I remember hearing about a new school that opened some years ago, that was having such troubles with accreditation standards that their accreditors made them stop accepting students for 1-2 years so they could clean up their act.

CNU prepared a teach-out plan in case LCME shut them down.

 

[LSTR]

That's what I thought! How likely is it that COCA and/or LCME shares the student's info with the school?

Because I wonder if admin is bitter enough to retaliate against those students.

The complaints get de-identified. According to the complaint policy (https://osteopathic.org/index.php?aam-media=/wp-content/uploads/Complaint-Policy.pdf):

Names of all individuals identified in the complaint will be redacted prior to
submission to the COM for its response.

Just like with anything, there's probably some risk in filing a complaint. What's done is done, though.

 

[DO2015CA]

Pharmacy schools have been shut down be accreditors recently, and I remember hearing about a new one that opened some years ago, that was having such troubles with accreditation standards that their accreditors made them stop accepting students for 1-2 years so they could clean up their act.

CNU prepared a teach-out plan in case LCME shut them down.

They didn’t plan to just hard switch to DO ??? 🤭