| This case study investigated accreditation activities and outcomes through program directors' experiences of navigating the internal review and self-study processes in Graduate Medical Education (GME) programs. As the residency program director oversees the accreditation process for his or her specialty field of medicine, s/he is a key player in successful GME. A wide variety of literature was reviewed to build a foundation for the study due to a lack of research that focused on program directors' experiences with accreditation and the internal review process. The foundation for this study was built on a literature review derived from the topics addressing the call for accountability in GME, the changing culture of GME, the need for accreditation, and the role self-study plays in the accreditation process. In addition, the literature review provided an in-depth examination of Kells' (1980a, 1995) general flow model for a self-evaluation process that was used as the conceptual framework for this study.;In this multiple-case study involving 16 directors from two medical schools' residency programs, the researcher examined directors' experiences through interviews, observations, and document analysis. The interviews were audio-taped, transcribed, and analyzed to discover how these directors navigated the internal review site visit and other self-study processes. The data revealed that while most program directors consider the internal review an important process some consider it ineffective. Findings revealed that participants did not regard the internal review as synonymous to a self-study and haphazardly went through the stages while preparing for the review.;This study is therefore significant because the data it collected and analyzed (a) adds to the literature on GME, self-studies, and accreditation; (b) explores how program directors navigate the internal review process; (c) provides the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) officials data to examine and use in training workshops to develop effective compliance programming techniques; and (d) gives university administrators the information needed to access how their training programs are being evaluated, what barriers are preventing successful reviews, and whether adequate resources are available to program directors in order to achieve full accreditation. |
