Fellowship Accreditation: Experiences From Health Care Simulation Experts

Abstract

Background: The field of health care simulation continues to grow, accompanied by a proliferation of fellowship programs, leading to fellowship accreditation efforts. There is controversy around the best approach to accreditation.

Objective: The authors sought to understand perspectives of simulation leaders on fellowship accreditation to best inform the growth and maturation of fellowship accreditation.

Methods: In 2020, simulation leaders identified through snowball sampling were invited to participate in a qualitative study. During one-on-one semistructured interviews, participants were asked about experiences as simulation leaders and their perspective on the purpose and impact of accreditation. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis informed by a phenomenology framework was performed using a masked open coding technique with iterative refinement. The resulting codes were organized into themes and subthemes.

Results: A total of 45 simulation experts participated in interviews ranging from 25 to 67 minutes. Participants described discord and lack of consensus regarding simulation fellowship accreditation, which included a spectrum of opinions ranging from readiness for accreditation pathways to concern and avoidance. Participants also highlighted how context drove the perception of accreditation value for programs and individuals, including access to resources and capital. Finally, potential impacts from accreditation included standardization of training programs, workforce concerns, and implications for professional societies.

Conclusions: Simulation leaders underscored how the value of accreditation is dependent on context. Additional subthemes included reputation and resource variability, balancing standardization with flexibility and innovation, and implications for professional societies.