Frequently asked questions
The decision to apply should be made after a careful perusal of the guidance document provided alongside the applications. Most individuals will be able to judge whether their exposure to simulation activities is sufficient enough to demonstrate that they have the appropriate knowledge, skills and experience towards a successful individual application. The decision to apply for a programme accreditation should be made following careful consideration of whether the programme meets the standards set out the ASPiH standards framework and if enough evidence can be provided to achieve successful accreditation. Similarly, the organisational accreditation process should be considered only after a self-assessment and reflection of whether the organisation can demonstrate adherence to the standards identified in the document. ASPiH however, is keen to encourage and support as many individuals, programmes and organisations to work towards and achieve accreditation, we will not reject any application but instead may suggest ways and means to obtain a successful accreditation even if the applicant does not appear to fulfil the criteria in the first instance.
ASPiH believes that a high quality simulation programme can be delivered only if the faculty themselves are well trained and of a high quality and if the organisation where the programme is being delivered in provides the right environment for learning to occur and upholds the values of simulation-based education. Hence our suggestion is that for a programme to be accredited, the individual delivering the programme and/or the organisation supporting the programme should be accredited. We are aware that there may be some programmes that are delivered through routes other than a recognised organisational route, for example, in-situ or where they are stand alone programmes delivered by a small team of educators for a specific learner set which may span several organisations e.g. Foundation trainees, with a bespoke programme delivered across the region. In this instance, it may be easier to apply for programme accreditation than for the multiple organisations that may be involved in it delivery.
ASPiH does not believe that it is a regulatory body which will monitor compliance to standards. The aim of the ASPiH standards are to support innovation and act as an aspirational tool to encourage individuals and organisations to raise the profile and value of simulation-based education.
We do not believe that this can be easily achieved from the perspective of the accrediting organisation. While there may be an opportunity to pursue this suggestion in the future, currently this will add an administrative complexity to the application process which ASPiH prefers to avoid at this time. More relevant, is that we believe individuals and programmes will benefit from undertaking the bespoke application process due to the reflection and introspection which contributes to future self development and enhancement of learning experiences for learners and the community as a whole.
Yes - you can cross reference evidence where appropriate, especially where a large volume of evidence has been provided. However, we rely on the applicant providing sufficient depth and breadth of evidence to draw meaningful conclusions. Hence in an application where only a small body of evidence has been presented, further cross referencing will weaken the application.
It is advisable that you read the introductory guidance document, the Standards for SBE Framework and the relevant application document. Lists of suggested evidence is provided within each of the application forms.
An application for accreditation is essentially a retrospective endeavour; achievements to date rather than specific details of future plans. Suitably redacted or anonymised documents would be acceptable. Ultimately the onus is on the individuals or centres to provide information sufficient to allow us to accept that they have met the minimum threshold for accreditation.
ASPiH and the accreditation committee offer an assurances of data security for all those submitting accreditation applications
Applications are never rejected - they are only deferred and the timeframe for resubmission will be on a case by case basis. Feedback to the applicant will suggest the period of time or evidence required before resubmission
A programme may be a single course, a sequence of courses or a module, that share common educational objectives, for example, train the trainer.
Individual accreditation is for all members of the faculty team; technicians can apply for accreditation as long as they are able to fulfil the application and evidence requirements.
Currently, ASPiH has no capacity to accept video footage as evidence, but this may alter in the near future.
No, courses that are repeated can be referenced by frequency i.e. 6 times a year and perhaps include a course review as evidence.
There is no "best order" although our experiences show that individuals usually make the first contact with the accreditation scheme. This is then followed by either the programme or organisation applying for accreditation. There is no specific order and the "best order" is left to the applicant to arrive at based on their personal and/or their organisation’s circumstances and requirements.
Ideally, all faculty should be accredited, however ASPiH appreciate that this is not feasible. A pragmatic solution would be to aim for over 50% of all facilitators in an organisation to be accredited to allow for a critical mass of facilitators to spearhead change and innovation.
The decision needs to be made by the organisation concerned. The process of engaging with programme accreditation allows the programme to be evaluated both internally and externally by a group of skilled assessors. This will make the programme more robust and raise its credibility internally and externally to learners, providers and commissioners. Ideally all programmes should undergo the accreditation process; however, this may be tedious and time consuming especially where significant overlap may occur between similar programmes. Hence organisations must choose programmes for accreditation depending on their need and that of the community they serve.
Unfortunately not; it may not be the centre that applies in the first instance, faculty and educators may become accredited and then perhaps one programme and then wait a few years before applying for organisation/centre accreditation. The system and processes need to be flexible.