Czech Republic Higher Education Department 09/25/2018 08/20/2018 Final Review Special Report

U.S. Department of Education

Czech Republic Special Report


Prepared July 2018

Background

At its March 1998 meeting, the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation (NCFMEA) first determined that the accreditation standards used by the Accreditation Commission Czech Republic to evaluate medical schools were comparable to those used to evaluate programs leading to the M.D. degree in the United States. The Czech Republic has accredited the following medical schools: Palacky University Medical School in Olomouc, Charles University 1st Medical School in Prague, Charles University 2nd Medical School in Prague, Charles University 3rd Medical School in Prague, Masaryk University Medical School in Brno, Charles University Medical School in Plzen, and Charles University Medical School in Hradec Kralove. In 2015, the Committee accepted the update/special report and determination that the Czech Republic’s standards and processes were comparable to those used in the U.S. The most recent redetermination review of the Czech Republic took place at the September 2017 meeting of the NCFMEA. At that time, the NFCMEA determined that it needed additional information in order to make its decision regarding the comparability of the standards used by the Accreditation Commission to accredit medical schools in Czechia. The NCFMEA invited the Accreditation Commission to submit a special report of additional information, with supporting documentation that is translated into English, for redetermination of comparability for review during this meeting.


Summary of Findings

Additional information is requested for the following questions. These issues are summarized below and discussed in detail under the Staff Analysis section. -- The country has noted that there are no standards for clinical clerkships and patient care, however, the current accreditation rules for humanities and technical areas, which are similar to those used in the post-graduate medical education program, will be gradually adopted to meet this requirement. The NCFMEA may wish to request a report on the adoption of these standards which assess a medical school's delivery of instruction and clinical clerkship experience in patient care in ambulatory and hospital settings. [] -- Currently, the country's laws prohibit the use of performance data for an accreditation decision. However, the country has noted that there are plans to develop standards for meaningful data-driven decisions in the future. The NCFMEA may wish to request a report on the development of standards which incorporate current practices of admission, enrollment, or other forms of evaluation to determine whether to grant accreditation to a school or program. []

Staff Analysis


Outstanding Issues

As noted in the narrative, the country has provided a template of an evaluation report but, as noted in the narrative, is not able to provide a sample self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request documentation in English at a later date. [Mission and Objectives, Question 1]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s concerns about how the national accreditation board reviews school’s compliance with the requirement of establishing a mission meeting public interest, we are attaching three new exhibits (in English). One (Exhibit 12) is a recent annual report of the First Faculty of Medicine, where especially in the part concerning public relations, various activities for the benefit of larger public are mentioned. The second (Exhibit 13) is a recent review from the accreditation process of the medical faculties of the Charles University. The third one (Exhibit 14) are the minutes from Dean’s Board annual retreat (which are, in compliance with the law, publicly accessible on Faculty web site and thus accessible to the accreditation committee’s perusal), where a significant portion is also devoted to public activities.


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, the Czech Republic Accreditation Commission (CRAC) has provided a narrative of and supporting documentation of requiring an educational mission that serves public interest. As requested, the CRAC has provided the Annual Report, First Faculty of Medicine (Ex. 12) which describes research, presentation, and collections of resources that demonstrate engagement and sharing of information that benefits the field and to communicate public interests of what is expected of a physician. In addition, the Accreditation Report (Ex. 13) also demonstrates the implementation of the country's requirements for a medical school's faculty are involved in defining the objectives for establishing and evaluating curriculum and educational program objectives that serve as guidelines for competencies in medical education. Additional documentation on the role and responsibilities of faculty demonstrate the implementation of the country's requirement for faculty to be involved and to formally adopt the educational program's governance process.


As noted in the previous section, the country noted that 50% of a student's time is allocated to laboratory experience but is unable to submit documentation of a sample self-study or on-site report to demonstrate review of a program's compliance with this standard. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Curriculum, Question 7]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s concerns about how the national accreditation board monitors school’s compliance with the requirement of having 50% of a student's time is allocated to laboratory experience, we are attaching two new exhibits (in English). The first is a recent on-site review from the accreditation process of the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13). The second one are the minutes from Dean’s Board annual retreat (Exhibit 14; these are, in compliance with the law, publicly accessible on Faculty web site and thus accessible to the accreditation committee’s perusal). Furthermore, study plans documenting the proportion of lectures, seminars and practical classes (example: former Exhibit 7), it is available to the national accreditation board for review.


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, the Czech Republic Accreditation Commission (CRAC) has provided a narrative of and supporting documentation discussing the requirements for science courses to have practical exercises with an appropriate amount of experiential time allocated to the subject matter . As requested, the CRAC has provided the Annual Report, First Faculty of Medicine (Ex. 12) which describes research, presentation, and collections of resources as well as a sample accreditation report (Ex. 13) evaluating Charles University's programs in General Medicine and Dentistry. Department staff has confirmed the country's narrative regarding course requirements, course descriptions, or practical exercises within the supporting documentation provided confirming implementation of its requirement for practical exercises that facilitate 50% of time allocated to laboratory participation (Ex. 13, p.4).


The country uses 2011 Standards as a reference for the basic principles for medical schools. The NCFMEA may wish to request current CRAC Standards that address this requirement. [Clinical Experience, Question 3]


Country Narrative

Examples of current standards used by the accreditation board are evident from the recent evaluation report attached (Exhibit 13, page 1, Instructions for evaluation).


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, the country has discussed "emerging generally formulated Standards for Accreditation" and noted that the 2011 Standards, which were used during that reporting period, were no longer appropriate to evaluate the current programs. The Department suggested that the NCFMEA request current documentation of the Czech Republic Accreditation Commission's (CRAC) standards or that the country address the validity and reference of the old standards. The CRAC has not provided documentation of current standards or supporting documentation demonstrating implementation of current standards to address the clinical clerkships in outpatient and inpatient settings as requested.

Country Response

Concerning this point, there are unfortunately no written specific standards that could be provided for the clinical clerkships in Medicine in outpatient and inpatient settings, since the accreditation rules of the CRAC are written in a general way to account for all the Institutions of higher education including humanities and technical areas (all this is covered by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports). It is planned, however, that such standards will be gradually adopted similar to those currently in action for the post-graduate medical education (i.e., specified number of days in accredited surgical or internal medicine hospitals, generally tertiary centers).

Analyst Remarks to Response

In response to the staff's recommendation that the country submits documentation discussing standards that govern the delivery of instruction for clinical clerkships and patient care, the country has noted that there are no specific standards available to meet this requirement. In addition, the country notes that there are current accreditation rules of the CRAC that are written to include humanities and technical areas as covered by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports and that specific standards for clinical clerkship and patient care in ambulatory and hospital settings, similar to those used in the post-graduate medical education program, will be gradually adopted to meet this requirement. The NCFMEA may wish to request an update or status report on the development of standards which assess a medical school's delivery of instruction and clinical clerkship experience in patient care in ambulatory and hospital settings.


Staff Conclusion: Additional Information requested


 As noted in the previous section, the country provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Ethics, Question 1]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s concerns about how the national accreditation board monitors school’s compliance with the ethical standards, we are attaching three new exhibits: The first is a recent on-site review from the accreditation process of the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13). The second one are the minutes from Dean’s Board annual retreat (Exhibit 14; these are, in compliance with the law, publicly accessible on Faculty web site and thus accessible to the accreditation committee’s perusal). The third one, also accessible to the accreditation committee prior to its final decision, is the Ethic Code (example: First Faculty of Medicine, Exhibit 15) that documents the school’s policy on such issues.


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, the NCFMEA requested translated supporting documentation demonstrating compliance with the requirement for medical ethics and human values courses within the curricula for General Medicine and Dentistry. The Czech Republic Accreditation Commission (CRAC) has provided an Accreditation Report (Ex. 13), translated in English, which describes how a specialized Board regularly monitors and evaluated the quality of the courses and the success of instruction in the medical ethics and human values courses. The submission of this documentation demonstrates compliance with this requirement.


 The country has provided a narrative and links to a curriculum plan of study with instruction in communication skills. However, the NCFMEA may wish to request the standard as well as sample documentation of a self-study or on-site report demonstrating review of compliance with this requirement. [Communication Skills, Question 1]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s concern about how the national accreditation board monitors school’s compliance with adequate teaching of communication skills, we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13).


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, the Czech Republic Accreditation Commission (CRAC) has provided a narrative of and supporting documentation discussing the requirements for teaching effective communication skills and oral competency. As requested, the CRAC has provided the Accreditation Report (Ex. 13) and the minutes from the Dean's Board Retreat (Ex. 14) to demonstrate implementation of the requirement for a level of communication skills sufficient for physician responsibilities, including communication with patients, families, colleagues, and other health professionals.


 As noted in the narrative, the country has discussed the MCAT as used to determine admission for student currently holding a Bachelor's or Master's degree but that the institutions' admission criteria refers to students who completed 13 years of study. Also, SAT scores are used to determine admission to programs taught in English.  However, the country did not provide documentation to demonstrate review of admission practices for senior students or those immediately completing secondary education. The NCFMEA may wish to request sample documentation such as a self-study or on-site report demonstrating its review of a program's compliance with this requirement. [Admissions, Recruiting, and Publications, Question 1]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s concern about how the national accreditation board monitors school’s admission practices for various groups of applicants, we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13). In addition, we attach report from Dean’s Board retreat, where such policies are regularly reviewed and updated on the end of the medical schools (Exhibit 14) and which are available to the committee as a part of the re-accreditation package.


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, the Czech Republic Accreditation Commission (CRAC) has provided supporting documentation admission criteria for the General Medicine and Dentistry programs. The 2016 Annual Report discusses the use of entrance exams as well as past performance in secondary education math, biology, chemistry, and physics (Ex. 12, p. 23). In addition, the Report noted the appeals process for prospective students who failed the entrance exams or did not have sufficient scores for a waiver of the entrance exam (p. 23).


In response, the country has provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Admissions, Recruiting, and Publications, Question 2]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s concern about how the national accreditation board monitors school’s admission criteria, we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13). In addition, we attach report from Dean’s Board retreat, where such policies are regularly reviewed and updated on the end of the medical schools (Exhibit 14) and which are available to the committee as a part of the re-accreditation package. The admission criteria of all medical schools are hot topic of public debate and play an important role in the applicant’s decision to which schools they apply; therefore, this information is regularly made public in respective medical school’s annual reports (example: Exhibit 12, Annual report of the First Faculty of Medicine).


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the previous section, the Czech Republic Accreditation Commission (CRAC) has described an institution's practice of using entrance exams and past performance in related courses to determine a prospective student's qualifications for admission (Annual Report, Ex. 12, p. 23).


 In response, the country has provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Admissions, Recruiting, and Publications, Question 3]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s concern about how the national accreditation board monitors school’s admission criteria, we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13). These criteria are also kept updated in the section For Applicants on the websites of each medical school, and those are regularly monitored both at the University level and also by the accreditation committee as a part of the evaluation process.


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, the Czech Republic Accreditation Commission (CRAC) has provided supporting documentation admission criteria for the General Medicine and Dentistry programs. The 2016 Annual Report discusses the use of entrance exams as well as past performance in secondary education math, biology, chemistry, and physics (Ex. 12, p. 23). In addition, the minutes from the Dean's Board Retreat (Ex. 14) discussed issues related to admission criteria and the use of additional conditions to determine admission, resources for prospective students, and publications related to an institution's admission criteria and determination processes.


 In response, the country has provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Admissions, Recruiting, and Publications, Question 4]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s question about how the national accreditation board monitors school’s maintenance of adequate teaching staff, we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13).


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, the NCFMEA requested documentation, translated in English, regarding sufficient teaching staff and student access to the teaching staff. The Czech Republic Accreditation Commission (CRAC) has provided a sample of an institution's site visit and the evaluation of the structure, quality, and sufficient size teaching staff that corresponds with the size of the student body (Accreditation Report, Ex. 13) as well as the criteria for appointment of teaching staff in medical facilities (p. 5).


As discussed in the analysis, the country has discussed that it does not require medical schools to publish graduation rates, student codes of conduct and disciplinary actions, admission criteria, plans of study for academic progress. The NCFMEA may wish to inquire about the Czech Republic's intent on implementing this requirement in future standards to be in compliance with this regulation. [Admissions, Recruiting, and Publications, Question 5]


Country Narrative

Graduation rates for individual medical schools are considered important criteria determining the applicant’s choice of medical schools; as such, those are regularly published in the media. Example was provided in a previous report of the accreditation board (from 2006) for the historical data. Concerning the other issues such as publishing the results of disciplinary actions, this is complicated by the current uncertainties caused by recent adoption of pan-EU legislation on GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) that prevents disclosing any potentially sensitive personal information without good reasons and explicit written consent. Concerning the academic progress criteria, these are publicly available on the webs of respective medical schools (example for the First Faculty of Medicine: https://www.lf1.cuni.cz/document/67052/kriteria-2016-schvalena-vr-29112016.pdf) and specify e.g. the minimum requirements for promotion to the Associate and then Full Professor status.


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, the NCFMEA requested additional documentation, translated in English, to demonstrate implementation of the country's standard for a medical school's representation of the mission and objectives of the program. The Czech Republic Accreditation Commission (CRAC) has provided a 2016 Annual Report (Ex. 12) which discusses Studies in General Medicine (p. 24), Theoretical and pre-clinical studies (p. 25), enrollment and graduation rates (p. 27-29) for bachelor and master's degree programs. This documentation, translated in English, demonstrates implementation of the country's standards to meet this requirement.


 In response, the country has provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Admissions, Recruiting, and Publications, Question 6]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s concern about how the national accreditation board monitors school’s record keeping and access of students to this data, we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13). The student access is in practice tested annually in public as some students always choose to legally challenge the decision about their non-admittance to study and request a review of their entrance exams, which is in all cases performed, demonstrating both the integrity of the records as well as their accessibility.


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, the NCFMEA has provided documentation to support the implementation of the country's requirement for maintaining security of student records. The 2016 Annual Report discusses the use electronic resources and an electronic portal (Ex. 12, p. 34) that secures student records while providing access to relevant records and resources. The country has provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate comparability to this section.


As noted in the previous section, the country provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Mission and Objectives, Question 2


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s concerns about how the national accreditation board monitors school’s compliance with the requirement of having a clear objective and matching contents of the curriculum, we are attaching two new exhibits (in English). The first is a recent on-site review from the accreditation process of the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13). The second one are the minutes from Dean’s Board annual retreat (Exhibit 14; these are, in compliance with the law, publicly accessible on Faculty web site and thus accessible to the accreditation committee’s perusal), where could be seen examples of continuous enhancements of the curriculum to match today’s need (example: integrative teaching of Cardiovascular medicine by surgical and internal medicine departments).


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, the NCFMEA requested documentation, translated in English, regarding the Czech Republic Accreditation Commission's (CRAC) requirement for an institutions objectives to align with the curriculum. The country has provided a sample of an institution's site visit and the evaluation (Accreditation Report, Ex. 13) noting the "range and structure of the realized educational activities are according to the government (p. 3)." The country has provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.


In response, the country has provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Student Achievement, Question 3]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s request to demonstrate how the national accreditation board reviews school’s requirement to have a method for tracking satisfactory academic progress, we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13). In essence, the committee agreed that while the credit criteria, required by the European Credit Transfer System are not appropriate for medical schools, the system of pre-requisites assuring that the students pass mandatory subjects in a sensible and specified order is working well in assuring student’s progress through the medical curriculum.


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, there was a recommendation for the country to provided supporting documentation, translated in English, to support its narrative on the use of an individualized system and a student's self-monitoring to record performance and completion in required coursework. The Czech Republic Accreditation Commission (CRAC) also needed to provide evidence of implementing the standard for an institution to evaluate student achievement in coursework and clerkships. The CRAC has provided sufficient documentation that there is a Graduate Task Force (Minutes Dean's Board Retreat, Ex. 14) which monitors student achievement in required coursework and clerkships and the promotion and graduation of those who successfully complete the program.


As noted in the staff analysis, the country has provided additional documentation of the evaluation report template but the NCFMEA may wish to request sample documentation such as a self-study or on-site report to demonstrate that it has conducted a review or evaluation of a medical program's records for compliance. [Student Achievement, Question 4]


Country Narrative

In response we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13) that demonstrates how the committee evaluates student outcome measures. As a basis of this decision, we are including the Annual Report of the First Faculty of Medicine (Exhibit 13) that also mentions student outcomes prominently.


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, there was a recommendation for the country to provided supporting documentation, translated in English, to support its narrative on the use of outcomes data on student performance to report on an institution's compliance with its educational program objectives. The Czech Republic Accreditation Commission (CRAC) has provided sufficient documentation of an Annual Report (Ex. 12) with performance and outcomes data, including enrollment, course completion, and graduation rates (p. 27-29) to demonstrate implementation of the country's standard for data collection of student achievement measures.


In response, the country has provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Student Achievement, Question 5]


Country Narrative

In response we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13) that demonstrates how the committee monitors student evaluations of teaching quality. As a basis of this decision, we are including the Minutes of the Dean’s Board retreat (Exhibit 14) that puts a lot of emphasis on annual evaluation of clerkships and theoretical courses.


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, there was a recommendation for the country to provided supporting documentation, translated in English, which discusses the process for collecting and using student evaluations and feedback on the quality of courses and clerkships required to complete the medical program including the use of outcomes data on student performance to report on an institution's compliance with its educational program objectives. The Czech Republic Accreditation Commission (CRAC) has provided sufficient documentation of an Annual Report (Ex. 12) which discusses the CRAC's General Evaluation from students to provide feedback on the teaching staff which is then used by the unit to review and respond with future solutions (p.45). In addition, the Code of Ethics for Charles University First Faculty of Medicine (Ex. 15 ,(I), (9)) grants students the right to critically evaluate the teaching staff as defined in the Rules for Evaluation by Students of the First Faculty (Ex. 16 Faculty Status, Article 35). The Dean's Board uses the student evaluation data to determine final actions (Ex. 14 Minutes from Dean's Board Retreat).


 In response, the country has provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Student Services, Question 1]


Country Narrative

In response we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13) that demonstrates how the committee monitors student evaluations of teaching quality. As a basis of this decision, we are including the Minutes of the Dean’s Board retreat (Exhibit 14) that puts a lot of emphasis on annual evaluation of clerkships and theoretical courses.


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, Department staff noted that the Czech Republic Accreditation Commission's (CRAC) original narrative discussed student services such as career planning, curriculum advising, tutoring, and financial and debt management counseling. It was determined that the country needed to provide documentation, translated in English, to support its narrative on student service activit8ies. The CRAC has provided sufficient documentation, translated in English, of an Annual Report (Ex. 12, p. 111) discussing activities performed by in Academic Affairs, including tutoring, career placement assistance, and enrollment counseling for 1st year students. Mental and physical health services are also required (p. 112). The Faculty Status document (Ex. 16, Article 28) also demonstrates implementation of the University's policy on student's rights and the responsibility and Code of Study.


 In response, the country has provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Student Complaints, Question 1]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s request to demonstrate how the national accreditation board monitors how the schools deal with student’s complaints, we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13). One of the bases for granting the accreditation serves the publicly accessible Annual Report (Exhibit 12) where these issues are also mentioned.


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As discussed in the previous section, the Czech Republic Accreditation Commission (CRAC) has demonstrated compliance with requirements related to students complaints by submitting documentation to support the narrative reported in 2017. The CRAC has provided sufficient documentation of an Annual Report (Ex. 12) which discusses the CRAC's General Evaluation from students to provide feedback on the teaching staff which is then used by the unit to review and respond to student complaints and to propose with future solutions (p.45). In addition, the Code of Ethics for Charles University First Faculty of Medicine (Ex. 15 ,(I), (9)) grants students the right to critically evaluate the teaching staff as defined in the Rules for Evaluation by Students of the First Faculty (Ex. 16 Faculty Status, Article 35), including students complaints regarding the tuition (courses) and teaching staff. The Dean's Board uses the student evaluation data to determine final actions (Ex. 14 Minutes from Dean's Board Retreat).


 In response, the country has provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Student Complaints, Question 2]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s request to demonstrate how the national accreditation board assesses how the schools deal with student’s complaints against medical schools, we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13). As an example of Dean’s decision concerning student’s appeal, an anonymized decision letter is attached (Exhibit 17).


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As discussed during the 2017 NCFMEA meeting, the country discussed the students complaints process to include the Academic Senate when complaints and/or evaluations were beyond the administrative responsibility of the unit. As noted in the country's Higher Education Act, Section 17 as previously submitted, students have the authority to submit complaints to the Czech Republic Accreditation Commission (CRAC) based on the level of seriousness. The NCFMEA then required the country to submit supporting documentation, translated in English, to demonstrate implementation of this standard. The CRAC has provided sufficient documentation of an Annual Report (Ex. 12) which discusses the role of the Academic Senate (p.12) regarding student complaints. The Academic Senate includes a student representative and serves a 4-year term. Student complaints are discussed at the annual meeting and forwarded to the Dean of Faculty and presented during the Dean's Board Retreat (Ex. 14) for the final decision. The CRAC has also submitted a decision letter of how the Faculty deals with student complaints (Ex. 17) and notes a student's right to appeal to the Rector of the University.


 The country has provided additional information regarding its standard for a medical program's financial records. However, the NCFMEA may wish to request additional documentation such as sample self-study, on-site review, or a financial audit to demonstrate that it reviews program records for compliance with this requirement. [Finances, Question 1]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s request to demonstrate how the national accreditation board assesses medical program’s finances, we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13). One of the bases for granting the accreditation serves the publicly accessible Annual Report (Exhibit 12) where these issues are also mentioned (pages 99-105).


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 analysis, the NCFMEA requested additional information from the country to demonstrate implementation of its standards for related to financial records and resources. In response, the Czech Republic Accreditation Commission (CRAC) has submitted an 2016 Auditor's Report (Exhibit 12 Annual Report, p. 100) which found that the institution has demonstrated appropriate practices for funds issues through the state "block grant", subsidies from the state budget, and income received from school fees and rental property. The Report also found that the institution complied with the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport's requirement for the institution to submit projected costs to complete an overall annual financial report. In addition, the Faculty Status (Ex. 16) notes that all activities of the faculty are financed through the State budget and income sources according to the regulations of the institution (Part VIII). The minutes from the Dean's Board Retreat (Ex. 14) and the Auditors Report demonstrates the institution's implementation of the economic management of the faculty policy.


In response, the country has provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Facilities, Question 1]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s request to demonstrate how the national accreditation board reviews the requirement for adequate facilities for the medical program, we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13). One of the bases for granting the accreditation serves the publicly accessible Minutes of the Dean’s Board retreat (Exhibit 14), where issues such as reconstructions of the existing facilities and construction of the new ones are planned and discussed.


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 analysis, the country provided a narrative discussing requirements for clinical facilities, collaborative effort of practitioners, and teaching staff as sufficient for the size of the student body. The country has provided supporting documentation of the institution's Faculty Status document (Ex. 16) with the requirement for units to be "established, modified, and dissolved" as determined by the Dean and with approval from the Academic Senate (Part V, Article 21). In addition, supporting documentation such as the Accreditation Report (Ex. 13, p. 9) and the minutes from the Dean's Board Retreat (Ex. 14) are provided as evidence that there are discussions about and reviews of the institution's need for equipment and clinical facilities as determined by the number of teaching staff and enrolled students.


In response, the country has provided a link to demonstrate course content for the humane care of animals. However, the course list from the Ministry of Agriculture is in Czech language. Also, documentation of a sample self-study or on-site report is needed to demonstrate the country's review of a program's compliance with this requirement. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation such as a self-study or on-site report to demonstrate review of a program's compliance and provide supporting documents in the English language at a later date. [Facilities, Question 2]


Country Narrative

Facilities for animal research are not the primary responsibility of the national accreditation committee, as these are governed by separate laws enforced by different ministries than education (i.e., Agriculture and Environment). This is evident from the attached Exhibit 13 (Evaluation report, 2018). However, since research (including the one using experimental animals) is an integral part of medical school’s mission, the facilities undergo scheduled re-accreditation of the appropriate board; current one is taking place at the First Faculty of Medicine right now (July, 2018), and translation of its course and results will be made available as soon as possible (definitely prior to September NCFMEA meeting).


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, the country's Decree for accreditation requires medical education programs to have an approval process for the use of humane care of animals during teaching and research. The Czech Republic Accreditation Commission (CRAC) has submitted supporting documentation, translated in English, noting the Ethics Code (Ex. 15, (17)) requiring approval from the Ethics Committee and the Accreditation Report (Ex. 13) demonstrates a review of the institution's policy for a scientific board of qualified professionals to check the quality of educational activities (p.8) as well as a review of the faculty's ability to provide needed resources for all scientific research. The submission of the documentation demonstrates the country's compliance with this requirement as discussed in its 2017 narrative.


 In response, the country has provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Faculty, Question 1]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s request to demonstrate how the national accreditation board reviews the standards for adequate teaching staff and its qualification, we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13). One of the bases for granting the accreditation serves the self-study report listing the key persons (aka program guarantors) for each specialty at the respective medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 18).


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, the country has standards which require faculty (teaching staff) credentials and qualifications to support the size and scope of the medical education program at an institution. The country has provided documentation, translated in English, with the Accreditation Report's (Ex. 13, Section II2) review of full and associate professors, academic staff appointments, and the qualifications, workloads, and experience with foreign institutions. In addition, the minutes from Dean's Board Retreat (Ex. 14) notes the administrative review of the teaching staff's salary, contracts, and assignments for monitoring student performance to also demonstrate implementation of the policy for faculty performance.


 As noted in the previous section, the country provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Mission and Objectives, Question 3]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s request to additional documentation in English, we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13).


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in 2017 report, the country's narrative discussed standards which require faculty (teaching staff) credentials and qualifications to support the size and scope of the medical education program at an institution. In addition to providing translated documentation with the review of full and associate professors, academic staff appointments, and the qualifications, workloads, and experience with foreign institutions. To support the claims of the narrative, the country has provided a translated version of the Accreditation Report (Ex. 13) which notes the review of the Scientific Board's qualifications to check the quality of educational programs and activities of the institution (p. 8).


 In response, the country has provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Faculty, Question 2]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s request to additional documentation in English, we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13). Translation of the Ethics Code of the First Faculty of Medicine (Exhibit 15) is also attached to provide a sample of the substance on which the decision is made.


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the previous section, the country's narrative from the 2017 report discussed standards which require faculty (teaching staff) credentials and qualifications to support the size and scope of the medical education program at an institution. In addition to providing translated documentation with the review of full and associate professors, academic staff appointments, and the qualifications, workloads, and experience with foreign institutions. In addition, to meet the requirements for this section, the Ethics Code ( Ex. 15) also addresses policies to prevent official responsibilities from conflicting with personal interests/professions.


In response, the country has provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [ Library]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s request to additional documentation in English, we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13). Library facilities are specifically reviewed, but no details are mentioned. It is common sense that a medical school with 670 years of tradition has a library adequate for the purpose, but it is felt that specifying that it includes internet access and PubMed (which is freely accessible from any computer in the Czech Republic with web access) seems superfluous. Much more stringent requirement are enforced for the graduate programs, which are accredited in the same process (Exhibit 13).


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, the country has standard which require an institution to provide sufficient electronic resources, information technology, and equipment to meet the size of the student body and the programs of study. The standards also require student access to study materials, an internal evaluation system, and up to date non-periodical literature. As requested, the Czech Republic Accreditation Commission (CRAC) has submitted documentation to demonstrate compliance with the Ministry's standards. The Annual Report (Ex. 12) discusses the institution's Institute of Scientific Information which houses a public specialized library with print and electronic resources, monographs and periodicals, historic books, and a section of reference services and e-resources (p. 76).


In response, the country has provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Clinical Teaching Facilities, Question 1]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s request to provide additional documentation in English, showing how the accreditation committee monitors the adequacy of clinical teaching facilities, we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13) that serves as an on-site review. The need for sufficient clinical facilities is acutely felt by the Faculty leadership; this is documented by the Minutes of Dean’s Board retreat (Exhibit 14).


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, the country's standards require the Dean and the Director of a Teaching hospital to secure legal authority to operate in clinical facilities and ensure that the facility is appropriate for the size of the study body and the scope of the medical education program. The Czech Republic Accreditation Commission (CRAC) has provided documentation such as the Accreditation Report (Ex. 13) as evidence that there was a review of the institution's contracts with hospitals and private medical institutions (Area 35) as well as minutes from the Dean's Board Retreat (Ex. 14) noting advisement from the Dean and Director as required by the country's standard.


 In response, the country has provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Onsite Review, Question 1]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s request to provide additional documentation in English, we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13) that serves as an on-site review. One example of self-study prepared by the faculties for the purposes of granting the accreditation serves the listing of the key persons (aka program guarantors) for each specialty at the respective medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 18).


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, an onsite review begins with a self-study followed by an onsite evaluation conducted at the institution by the Czech Republic Accreditation Commission's (CRAC) work group. The visit includes an analysis of the site evaluation and tours of laboratories, classrooms, library, and teaching facilities. The country has submitted an Accreditation Report (Ex. 13) which is the analysis of the work group's site visit based on the Methodical Guidelines for Evaluators (Ex. 8). the Guidelines defines the roles, responsibilities, and qualifications of the Permanent Working Group for Medicine and Health Sciences of the Czech Republic, the evaluation process, and the submission of a conclusion and recommendation for accreditation for discussion at a plenary session of the CRAC.


The country has responded that the ACT No. 20/1966 is used to establish criteria for onsite review. However, the Act is not included as documentation for this petition. The NCFMEA may wish to request a copy of the Act No. 20/1966 Coll. as documentation to meet this requirement. [Onsite Review, Question 2]


Country Narrative

The criteria for evaluation are mentioned in the Accreditation Evaluation Report (Exhibit 13). Concerning the law governing these, there are current changes, so we are presently working on translation of the valid working as of 2018.


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, the country has standards for onsite reviews of medical education programs and institutions to ensure that the program can adequately accommodate the student body and, as discussed in the previous section, the Czech Republic Accreditation Commission's (CRAC) working group conducts the onsite evaluation based on the polices and guidelines in the Methodical Guidelines for Evaluators (Ex. 8). In addition, the country has submitted an Accreditation Report (Ex. 13) as evidence of implementing the standards in the Guidelines and he criteria used for evaluation of the administration, teaching, and monitoring procedures.


In response, the country has provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Onsite Review, Question 4]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s request to provide supporting documentation in English, demonstrating compliance with the accreditation requirements, we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13) that serves as an on-site review.


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the previous section, the country has standards for onsite reviews of medical education programs and institutions to ensure that the program can adequately accommodate the student body with quality technical materials and resources appropriate for the premises for the program of study as provided in the Methodical Guidelines for Evaluators (Ex. 8). To demonstrate compliance with this requirement, the country has submitted an Accreditation Report (Ex. 13), translated in English, as evidence of implementing the standards in the Guidelines.


 In response to suggestion that the NCFMEA request documentation of qualification standards and sample training resources for its on-site reviewers, the country has provided additional narrative on the expectations for the CRAC working group. However, the NCFMEA may wish to request actual documentation of standards and sample training resources to demonstrate the country's compliance with this requirement. [Qualifications of Evaluators, Decision-makers, Policy-makers]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s request to provide supporting documentation in English, demonstrating qualifications of the evaluators, we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13) that serves as an on-site review. As can be seen from the Page 1, which lists the members of the committee, all the four members are full university professors, attesting to the highest possible qualification in the field of higher education. Their independence and lack of conflict of interest is assured by their affiliations (no affiliation with the school(s) evaluated) and their affidavits confirming no vested interests in the school(s) evaluated.


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, the country's narrative identifies the Ministry of Education Youth and Sports is the sole decision-making body for award of accreditation based on the recommendation of the Czech Republic Accreditation Commission's (CRAC) work group which conducted the onsite evaluation. Members of the CRAC are appointment by the Czech Republic government as proposed by the Ministry of Education Youth and Sports. Also discussed in the 2017 report were the qualifications of the ad-hoc work group which conducts the onsite evaluations. Though not formally trained by the CRAC, they familiarize themselves with the Standards for Accreditation, use the Methodical Guidelines for Evaluation (Ex. 8), and are active in CRAC activities. The work group also uses the Accreditation Report (Ex. 13) template as a resource for discussion prior to completing the institution's evaluation.


 In response, the country has provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Re-evaluation and Monitoring, Question 1]


Country Narrative

Country’s compliance with this requirement is evidenced by the attached Accreditation committee report (Exhibit 13), from which date it is evident that re-evaluations of medical programs are performed on a regular basis.


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, the country's narrative discussed the evaluation of medical schools as conducted regularly in relation to the expiration of the accreditation of their study program, typically each four to eight years. In addition, the country's standards require the Deans of the medical schools to submit an annual report on activities, including compliance with the standards, an independent financial report, and an overview of activities from the teaching staff and student body. The country has submitted the Annual Report (Ex. 13) as evidence of implementing the standard for regulation review of the institution's activities, including an independent financial report, student evaluation, and projected mission and objectives.


 In response, the country has provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Re-evaluation and Monitoring, Question 2]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s request to provide supporting documentation in English, we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13) that serves as an on-site review. Sample annual report of the First Faculty of Medicine (Exhibit 12) is attached as well. As an example of internal Faculty document documenting developing of academic vision serve the Minutes from the Dean’s Board retreat (Exhibit 14).


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As discussed during the 2017 NCFMEA meeting, the country's students complaints process is re-evaluated and monitored regularly. As noted in the country's Higher Education Act, Section 17 as previously submitted, students have the authority to submit complaints to the Czech Republic Accreditation Commission (CRAC) based on the level of seriousness. The NCFMEA then required the country to submit supporting documentation, translated in English, to demonstrate implementation of this standard. The CRAC has provided sufficient documentation of an Annual Report (Ex. 12) which discusses the role of the Academic Senate (p.12) regarding student complaints.Student complaints are discussed at the annual Dean's Board Retreat (Ex. 14) for the final decision. The CRAC has also submitted a final decision letter of how the Faculty deals with student complaints (Ex. 17) to demonstrate implementation of student complaint monitoring to meet this requirement.


 In response, the country has discussed a substantive change policy in the response narrative but documentation is not available in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Substantive Change]


Country Narrative

Considering the traditional nature of medical curriculum in Europe in general and in the Czech Republic in particular, substantial changes in its contents (larger than 5% by any criteria) simply do not happen – so there is no written policy mandating explicitly need for re-accreditation. In the past 29 years, there were only two such occasions: one was unification of the originally diverse programs of Pediatrics and Medical Hygiene, taught by the (now) Second and Third Faculty of Medicine, into General Medicine; the second was introduction of the problem-based curriculum at the Third Faculty of Medicine, which represent rather a change in the approach, not the goal and the curriculum is still 90% homologous with the other medical schools. Thus, any such substantive change will first involve a wide discussion and understanding among the peers would be reached before the request would be made to the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Education.


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

Although the country's 2017 report discussed the Czech Republic Accreditation Commission's (CRAC) policy regarding substantive change and the decision making body for a substantive change request, Department staff was not able to identify the written policy or supporting documentation as evidence of implementation of the noted policy. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional information, translated in English, with the CRAC's written policy for substantive change requests, including the decision-making process for new applications.

Country Response

We are able to provide the requested information in a new Exhibit, which is a verbatim translation of the recently approved standards detailing what exactly is considered a substantial change in an accredited program, and what is not. We hope that this will satisfy this point sufficiently.

Analyst Remarks to Response

In response to the staff's recommendation for the NCFMEA to request a substantive change policy, the country has submitted the Methods of the Council of the National Accreditation Office for Higher Education concerning the duty of the institutions of higher education to disclose information about changes in accredited activities (Exhibit 20 substantial changes standards 2018). The Council of the National Accreditation Office for Higher Education serves as the authority to determine if the substantive change is appropriate and if the school or program remains in compliance with the proposed change. The documentation notes that the Council requires institutions to disclose information about changes in an accredited program as well as specifics for how the information should be disclosed and the Council's review period. Changes listed in the document include changes in the accredited study program (Article 2); increase in scope or termination of fulfillment of a part of a study program (Article 3); and changes in the accredited disciplines for habilitation/creation of associate and full professors (Article 4).


Staff Conclusion: Comprehensive response provided


As noted in the previous section, the country provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Mission and Objectives, Question 4]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s request for additional supporting documentation, we attach the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13). The curriculum, against which the site visit could be compared, is included in Exhibit 7 (Study Plan for General Medicine).


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, the Czech Republic Accreditation Commission (CRAC) has provided a narrative of and supporting documentation that requires a medical education program to be based on current research with objectives that enable student achievement in defined competencies. As requested, the CRAC has provided the Annual Report, First Faculty of Medicine (Ex. 12) which describes how the curriculum in General Medicine is based on content matter that reflects the development of science and the teachers and student's views (p. 24). In addition, the Accreditation Report (Ex. 13) also demonstrates the implementation of the country's requirements for a medical school's faculty (teaching staff) are involved in defining the objectives for establishing and evaluating curriculum and educational program objectives that serve as guidelines for competencies in medical education.


The country has responded to the suggestion that the NCFMEA request the country provide the Additional Standards for Programs in Medicine and Dentistry as discussed in the narrative. However, the NCFMEA may wish to request documentation of a program's self-study or on-site report, to demonstrate a full review for compliance with this requirement. [Accrediting/Approval Decisions, Question 3]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s request for additional supporting documentation, we attach the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13. The data are contained in the publicly available Annual Reports of the individual medical schools (example: Exhibit 12).


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, the country's narrative discusses standards for data collection on student placement exams and and students who successfully completed degree requirements during the accreditation period. The country has submitted the Annual Report (Ex. 12) which notes student enrollment (pp. 50- 51), Doctoral State Examination Pass rates (pp.51-52); and admission and dissertation theses defense during the accreditation period (p. 55). However, there are no additional supporting documentation describing how the country uses this data to determine whether to grant accreditation to the school or program.

Country Response

Current accreditation standards do not take these numbers yet into consideration, as the CRAC is not legally allowed (according to the Higher Education Act) to award/deny the school’s accreditation based on too high/low numbers of enrolled or graduating students. However, the CRAC mandates that the schools monitor and report these numbers, and plans to incorporate them into standards meaningfully once sufficiently long data series are available. Currently, these numbers are one of the parameters according to which the prospective applicants choose their schools.

Analyst Remarks to Response

In response to the staff's recommendation that the country submits documentation discussing how data collection is used to determine an accreditation decision for a school or program, the country has noted that, although the CRAC mandates the reporting of some data sets, the country's laws currently prohibit the use of such data for an accreditation decision. In addition, the country has noted that there are plans to develop standards for meaningful data-driven decisions in the future. The NCFMEA may wish to request an update or status report on the development of standards which incorporate current practices of admission, enrollment, or other forms of evaluation to determine whether to grant accreditation to a school or program.


Staff Conclusion: Additional Information requested


The country has provided narrative about the criteria used to finance medical school programs. However, the NCFMEA may wish to request criteria used to determine an appropriate chief medical officer or other officials of authority who administers those resources. [Administrative Personnel and Authority, Question 2]


Country Narrative

The responsibilities of various academic officials for each medical school are précised in the Faculty Status; example for the First Faculty of Medicine is attached as Exhibit 16. The chief official responsible for the appropriate management of the financial resources is the Dean.


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, the country has noted the Dean as the chief medical officer of the medical school and has the authority as a university official to effectively administer the medical education program. The Rector of the University would be a comparable authority of a university president. As the university official administering the medical education program, the criteria used to determine the office of the Dean are defined in the Faculty Status (Ex. 16) with defined roles and responsibilities of the Dean's governance of the Faculty (Article 15), economic management of the faculty (Article 18), and advisory bodies (Article 19).


In response, the country has provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Administrative Personnel and Authority, Question 3]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s request to provide additional documentation in English, showing how the accreditation committee monitors compliance of the schools with the requirement to have sufficient resources for instruction and administration, we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13) that serves as an on-site review. One example of the self-study material detailing the support resources is included in Exhibit 19, Support departments with full-time equivalent personnel.


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the country's 2017 report, the standards for accreditation require that there are adequate staff and personnel resources needed to effectively instruct students. The Czech Republic Accreditation Commission (CRAC) has submitted supporting documentation (Exhibit 16 Faculty Status) which describe the medical school's academic authorities (Article 9) who are authorized to exercise law, University Constitution, Faculty Constitution, and other internal regulations consistent with their responsibilities to instruct the students. These department heads and senior faculty members include the Academic Senate (Article 10); Research Board (Article 13); Dean, Vice -Deans, and Dean's Board (Article 15, Article 17, Article 19); Bursar (Article 18); and Advisory Bodies (Article 19). In addition, the Accreditation Report (Ex. 13) is evidence that the CRAC's ad-hoc work group conducts a review of functional boards, staff, and "well-qualified professionals" for an evaluation of quality (Area 35).


 As noted in the staff analysis, the country has discussed the Statues of the Medical Facilities as the documentation that requires qualification for the chief medical official, but did not include the Statutes in the redetermination petition because it is not available in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request documentation of the Statutes or comparable documentation in English at a later date. [Chief Academic Official, Question 1]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s request for supporting documentation in English, we attach the full translation of sample Faculty statues (Exhibit 16).


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report and the previous section for administrative personnel, the country has noted the Dean as the chief medical officer of the medical school. The criteria used to determine the office of the Dean are defined in the Faculty Status (Ex. 16) with defined roles and responsibilities of the Dean's governance of the Faculty (Article 15), economic management of the faculty (Article 18), and advisory bodies (Article 19).


As discussed in the staff analysis, the country has discussed the selection and monitoring by the university and the use of institution regulations used by the Rector to appoint a Dean. The country also discussed MEYS monitoring of the selected official. However, the country did not provide sample documentation such as a self-study or on-site report to demonstrate a full review of this requirement. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional documentation which demonstrates the country's review to be compliance with this requirement. [Chief Academic Official, Question 2]


Country Narrative

In response to analyst’s request to provide additional documentation in English, showing how the accreditation committee monitors the activities of the duly appointed university officials, we are attaching the recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13) that serves as an on-site review. The best example of the self-study material detailing the involvement and activities of the Dean is the attached sample Annual report (Exhibit 12), which is publicly accessible and is used for the monitoring purposes both by the accreditation committee as well as general public (since the University and its faculties are public organizations).


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the 2017 report, the Dean serves as the chief medical officer of the medical school. The roles and responsibilities, as well as the selection process, are defined in the Faculty Status document (Ex. 16). The supporting documentation (Exhibit 16 Faculty Status), translated in English, describes the selection process as beginning with an election from members of the academic community, followed by a meeting with the Academic Senate to discuss performance of the office; and concludes with an election by the Senate no later than 90 days prior to the expiration of the Dean's term of office (Article 15).


In response, the country provided an evaluation report template but was not able to provide supporting documentation of a self-study or on-site report in English. The NCFMEA may wish to request additional supporting documentation in the English language at a later date. [Faculty]


Country Narrative

It is not clear whether this comment relates to question number 1 or 2. In any case, the supporting information is contained in the following exhibits: - The recent report (2018) of the accreditation committee’s evaluation of request by the medical faculties of the Charles University (Exhibit 13) that serves as an on-site review; - Ethics code of the First Faculty of Medicine (Exhibit 15) - Self-study listing the key persons for each specialty (Exhibit 18).


Analyst Remarks to Narrative

As noted in the previous section regarding faculty size and qualifications, the country's narrative from the 2017 report discussed standards which require faculty (teaching staff) credentials and qualifications to support the size and scope of the medical education program at an institution. In addition to providing translated documentation with the review of full and associate professors, academic staff appointments, and the qualifications, workloads, and experience with foreign institutions, faculty requirements are also discussed in the Ethics Code ( Ex. 15) to demonstrate compliance with policies to prevent official responsibilities from conflicting with personal interests/professions.