Review of the implementation of the Australian Occupational Health and Safety Education Accreditation process

Introduction The Australian OHS Education Accreditation Board (the Board) commenced accreditation of university occupational health and safety (OHS) courses in 2013. A formal evaluation of this accreditation was undertaken, with the qualitative review component, the main activity, reported here. Aims To assess the opinions of the OHS Academics, Professionals and Program Leaders, of their experience in undertaking the OHS Education Accreditation process for the first time and assess where support or further development or resources might be required to assist with the OHS Education Accreditation process nationally. Methods Participants who had been involved in the accreditation process were interviewed. Nineteen of 22 interviews of 12 eligible persons (some participants had dual roles) were undertaken for the study. An external party not involved in the accreditation process undertook the interviews and analysis of raw data and all data were de-identified and grouped where appropriate. Results There were no major issues identified with the mechanics of the accreditation process. The reported major strengths of the process included providing a clear marketing advantage to accredited courses compared to unaccredited courses; providing a prompt to OHS program academics to devote resources to reviewing each course and a mechanism to better argue for resources; the central role of the Body of Knowledge; and the process allowing each of the different institutions to maintain their unique characteristics and specialisations. The major identified limitations of the process included overlap from and competing demands of other university educational requirements; uncertainty regarding the balance of core aspects of the Body of Knowledge vs non-core aspects; the time and resources required for universities to participate in the accreditation process; potential overlap academics on the Panels benefitting from knowledge of their competitors' courses; and a need to better educate industry about the work of the Board and its accreditation system. Conclusions The accreditation process appears to have largely achieved its immediate aims without putting an excessive burden on the University staff or the OHS and academic members of the accreditation panel. Areas of potential improvement were also identified, such as the dual use of information for accreditation processes and internal university audit and a more equal emphasis on safety compared to health in the accreditation process. These areas have been considered by the Board for future course accreditation assessments.