APHEA Stakeholders Forum #1

Welcome to the resource page for the APHEA Stakeholder Forum #1 which took place on 4th March 2021. On this page you should have all of the information from the forum and evaluations.

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR INVOLVEMENT & SEE YOU ALL SOON!

Program

Attendees

Etiquette

Evaluation

Welcome & Introduction

Breakout room 1. Institutional Accreditation

Breakout room 2. Programme Accreditation

Breakout room 3. CTEE Accreditation (CPD training)

Breakout room 4. Curriculum Validation

Conclusions & Summary

Some highlights from the chat

• Stakeholder meetings where we can share good practice would be great!
• I would suggest smaller interactive discussion groups on teaching and learning practices, quality enhancement etc
• National accreditation does not replace APHEA, as they are rarely specific to our discipline.
• APHEA's mandate is additional to national accreditation. APHEA emphasizes compliance with international educational practices and norms, while national accreditation are more related to those related to national and local aspirations. Both are complementary in the quality assurance process.
• APHEA is able to accredit fully on line courses and has already done so
• Our online MPH is great and was just accredited by APHEA which has been a real boost for us
• Online opens up access for potential students not located in cities where there are Universities
• I think there needs to be recognition that in some countries, whilst PH remains the domain of clinicians and therefore clinical affiliations, elsehwere it is not a clinical programme
• Excellent meeting! well done APHEA! Much enjoyed, informative and well organised event! Look forward to future collaboration!
• To meet almost 100 PH experts from different parts of the world at one place and to have opportunity to exchange experiences on the different approaches in PH education with the focus on accreditation's value leaded by APHEA is really [great].
• Thank you and good night from Australia (it's 2:30 am here!)

In your opinion what worked well?

• Well organised.
• Short presentations plus discussion sessions gave valuable insight.
• Moderated online discussion format is good.
• The topics presented and the interactive discussion in the rooms and in the large room. Also, exchange experience with other accredit entities. 
• The working group discussion and presentations.
• Bringing a diverse range of people together to discuss issues of mutual interest.  The diversity in the group made for rich discussion.
• Zoom is an appropriate platform to host such discussions.
• Our session (and the whole attendee sessions) were well facilitated.
• Format of the meeting: less formal which made everyone feel comfortable
• Diversity of participants – different countries, different institutions, members of the board, junior and senior faculty
• The sharing of experiences and learning from each other.
• Openness to questions / comments
• The 4 groups were well focused on a theme therefore it was easy to communicate and share ideas on the chosen subject, even in a limited amount of time.
• the working groups were well identify and distributed
• the interaction and participation of the audience where energetic and active
• Small groups – allowed Q & As, discussion.
• Specific experience presentations.
• It was great to meet international community who achieved an accreditation with APHEA
• Organisation and communication of the meeting
• Scholarly inputs from stakeholders
• Getting a glimpse of global opinion for Public health course
• I think it worked very well, except for the fact that I do not speak English, which prevented me from having a more active participation.
• I liked the separate breakout sessions. The moderator was very engaging and skilled to make sure the patricians are active.

In your opinion, what didn’t work so well and can be improved?

• Starting the group sessions was a little bit complicated, because of technical problems; and we should have been reminded of which session we were previously registered to.
• Too short for full exchanges.
• More time for presentations and maybe a structured discussion on things that went right, as well as wrong, during accreditation would be useful.
• Slightly longer time would be good, however we of course need to be mindful of timezones and work commitments.
• Everything went well. Just the confusion at the start to join the rooms.
• The discussion could have been more targeted. We had the overarching question which was across all working groups ‘How can the value of accreditation be more widely understood and enhanced?’ So there should have been questions that we were trying to address within each group. Rather than it developing organically. This is so that the short time we had could have been used more effectively. A key point for CPD was around the value of CPD itself and how can APHEA help public health organisations to use CPD points more effectively in performance management structures. But we did not have time to discuss this further.
• The information provided in our session spoke very nicely to what the various representatives of each program experienced.  I think it would have been useful for each to provide a ‘what would I/we do differently next time’ so that some good advice could  be provided for those about to embark on the process.
• The wrap-up session is always very synthetic and it is difficult to have a real understanding of what has been discussed in order to have the possibility to re-open a real discussion in the full group.
• more efficient technology
• Nothing per se – see below for potential ‘improvements’.
• I suggest that in the next forums, the possibility of using another language be given, for example, Portuguese or French.
• I expected more broader plenary session, and more strategic discussions. The discussions were very operational, which might have been useful for the majority of the patricians, but I thought the meeting could focus more on the forward thinking.

Any other comments?

• More forums to present the success stories of the accredited institutes. 
• Really enjoyed the interaction with colleagues from different organisations.
• A very useful forum.
• Meetings could be held more often
• Forums could be set on more specific topics
• It was for sure a very nice way to gather together with many experienced people and realising how much work has been done and how much will have to be done in the future.
• make this event regular.
• It might be useful to have a ‘generic’ overview of the different processes at the start of each group session.  The presenters might then highlight areas that they found helpful/difficult etc.
• While there was a good ‘high level’ look at Institutional Accreditation (group I joined) and interesting discussion around some issues e.g. the interface between national accreditation and APHEA, I would have liked some input re ‘practical’ difficulties encountered in the process.  This would be relevant to the stage of the process we are at.
• Missed discussions in other rooms.
• I really enjoyed participating in the forum and I will be very happy to participate in others that may be held.
• The meeting was well organised under the circumstances. It was very interesting to see that APHEA is well represented globally. I would also appreciate minutes or summary form the meeting which I can share with my colleagues. 

Are there any areas which you would like the stakeholder forum to focus upon in the future?

• Training of evaluators
• It would be good to address the different models where public health may be focused mainly as a medical specialisation in one country, or as a more broad career path in others.
• Engaging more public health institutes to develop and understanding and promotion of institutional and programme level accreditation.
• Potential for the development of a community of practice
• Good practices
• Tips about quality enhancement (both at a programmatic and institutional level)
• Focus on current challenges, e.g. teaching online
• Something having to do on how training for, and review of, curricula, programmes and institutions is taken care of.
• evaluation of training and education programs
• Value of APHEA Accreditation in the longer- term.
• Comparative experience of changes observed e.g. student numbers/quality etc post Institutional & Programme Accreditation.
• Potential alternatives.
• Yes, I would like the APHEA to conduct the workshops on APHEA’s expectation/ code/standards to members and stakeholders to understand and uphold.
• I would like APHEA to include stakeholders in their discussions and implementation of the standards.
• Student and faculty exchanges across public health schools virtually to build bridges for academics.
• Networking opportunities for academics and research.
• Creation and accreditation of health research centers.
• I mentioned this during the meeting in my working group. I am looking for some guidance on how the participants obtaining APHEA CME points should go about them. Do they convert them via their national professional organisations into local CME points? That is not very clear and we have been asked multiple times for advice, but we don’t know how to advise them. Thanks!