The Journal of chiropractic education · 2026
Evaluating the need to revise chiropractic education standards in the United Kingdom: Adapting to progress.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Swait Gabrielle, Moore Daniel B, Dewhurst Philip A G, Bance Penelope A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Health regulators in the United Kingdom fulfill their statutory duty to maintain high standards of education and training of health professionals by setting standards for education. Ensuring standards are contemporary and fit for purpose is fundamental to this function. This research aimed to evaluate whether the Education Standards (ES) of the General Chiropractic Council (2017) remained fit for purpose in 2021 or whether revisions were needed to meet current and future competency requirements for chiropractic graduates.
METHODS: An exploratory, qualitative methodology was followed. The ES were comparatively mapped to relevant standards, authoritative practice, and quality assurance frameworks from other health care and higher education regulators, professional and chartered bodies. Areas of difference from other standards and frameworks were identified and substantive differences described.
RESULTS: Twenty-two global and national frameworks and standards were mapped. Health care disciplines included physiotherapy, medicine, and osteopathy. Subjects included musculoskeletal capabilities, rehabilitation, safety curricula, person-centered approaches, dementia training, research competencies, and education. Twenty substantive areas not captured in the ES or requiring strengthening were identified. These included person-centered approaches, safety and quality, rehabilitation, prevention and health promotion, psychologically informed approaches, interprofessional practice, collaborative care, integration of evidence into practice, digital readiness, and reflective practice. Substantive areas linked to program delivery included protecting the interests of patients in an education setting, clinical learning (including interprofessional), and the culture of research and evidence.
CONCLUSION: Although broadly fit for purpose, mapping indicated the ES were falling out of step with the evolving wider health care community, supporting recommendations for high level revisions.
METHODS: An exploratory, qualitative methodology was followed. The ES were comparatively mapped to relevant standards, authoritative practice, and quality assurance frameworks from other health care and higher education regulators, professional and chartered bodies. Areas of difference from other standards and frameworks were identified and substantive differences described.
RESULTS: Twenty-two global and national frameworks and standards were mapped. Health care disciplines included physiotherapy, medicine, and osteopathy. Subjects included musculoskeletal capabilities, rehabilitation, safety curricula, person-centered approaches, dementia training, research competencies, and education. Twenty substantive areas not captured in the ES or requiring strengthening were identified. These included person-centered approaches, safety and quality, rehabilitation, prevention and health promotion, psychologically informed approaches, interprofessional practice, collaborative care, integration of evidence into practice, digital readiness, and reflective practice. Substantive areas linked to program delivery included protecting the interests of patients in an education setting, clinical learning (including interprofessional), and the culture of research and evidence.
CONCLUSION: Although broadly fit for purpose, mapping indicated the ES were falling out of step with the evolving wider health care community, supporting recommendations for high level revisions.