Accreditation 2026 | School of Medicine

External review survey teams will meet with all key program partners (i.e. Program Directors, Department Head, Residents, Teaching Faculty, RPC, CC, etc.) to evaluate the program based on relevant accreditation standards.

In assessing whether the program has met a requirement, the survey team will:

Review all program information completed within CanAMS
Ask questions where clarification is required
On the report template the survey team selects “meets” or “does not meet”

The Accreditation Process

The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) and the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) conduct regular onsite accreditation visits (surveys) of all Canadian medical schools, to ensure the ongoing quality of postgraduate training.  The accreditation process follows an 8-year cycle which includes the onsite survey, regularly scheduled internal reviews, and any update reports (APORs) or external reviews of the residency training programs mandated by the Colleges in between onsite surveys.

At Queen’s University, the last onsite survey occurred in 2018 and was the last to occur under the old Standards of Accreditation. In 2026, we will be evaluated based on the new Standards of Accreditation. This will also be the first time the Queen’s Postgraduate Medical Education office receives an Accreditation Decision.

At Queen’s, the internal review process followed as closely as possible the formal RC/CFPC Accreditation process, to best prepare programs for the 2026 onsite survey.

Standards of Accreditation

The CanRAC consortium, which consists of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC), the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC), and the Collège des medecins de Québec (CMQ), oversees the Accreditation process. There are General Standards of Accreditation which apply to all postgraduate residency training programs. There are also discipline-specific standards of accreditation, which are standards outlined by each specialty committee, with details specific to each specialty. Each individual training program and program director ensures that their program meets both the general and discipline-specific standards of accreditation for their specialty.

Standards of Accreditation for Residency Programs in Family Medicine

General Standards of Accreditation for Institutions with Residency Programs

RCPSC Discipline-Specific Standards of Accreditation (Information by Discipline IBD)

CanAMS

CanAMS is the digital accreditation system used to support all accreditation activities for the postgraduate office, residency programs and AFC programs.  A program’s submission in CanAMS is a living document, which will be reviewed and updated prior to the onsite survey.  The program will be responsible for maintaining up-to-date program information on an ongoing basis.  The postgraduate office may set some internal guidelines relating to the population of CanAMS, and will provide guidance and internal deadlines for populating CanAMS instruments to ensure that they are finalized in time to meet the deadline provided by the College(s).

In preparation for the RC/CFPC Onsite Survey, each program must ensure that all documentation in CanAMS (Instruments – Profile and Previous AFIs) is up-to-date and complete. The PGME Accreditation Team will have access to all relevant available documentation and information within the residency program’s profile instrument(s).  

All documentation in CanAMS must be complete and up to date by August 2025.  Please contact the PGME Accreditation Team for further information.

Preparing for the 2026 Accreditation Onsite Survey

CanAMS Content

Program directors should begin to update their program’s information in CanAMS at the earliest possible opportunity. Remember this is a living document which can be continually updated as the program grows and evolves. It is important to make sure ALL information contained in CanAMS is up to date and accurate at the time of the onsite survey.

PDs can begin by completing the Previous AFI Instrument in CanAMS. This lists areas for improvement (AFIs) noted at the last formal survey. For most programs this will be the 2018 onsite survey, but for some it will relate to a more recent external review completed by the College. The program should outline changes made to address previous AFIs, and upload relevant evidence of changes made, along with CQI processes and evidence of outcomes, where available and relevant. Deadline of January 31, 2025, for completion of the Previous AFI Instrument in CanAMS, to allow for PGME feedback.

The program can complete the Program Profile Instrument, which includes questions related to the overall design and functioning of the program. The instrument questions do not directly map to standards, so program directors should answer these questions with the standards in mind, making it easier for onsite surveyors to evaluate whether and how the program is meeting standards of accreditation.

For most programs, CanAMS will be populated with information from the program’s internal review. However, the CanAMS profile instrument has been updated since most of the programs at Queen’s underwent their internal review – there are new standards related to EDIIA, and resident safety, and there will be new questions in the instrument requiring answers.

Additionally, previous documents uploaded for the internal review have not been carried forward to the updated CanAMS profiles. This means programs will need to review and update all supporting documents in preparation for the 2026 on site survey, which is best practice anyway. Ensure that documents are labelled clearly and correctly.

OneDrive

Certain confidential documents are not uploaded to CanAMS. These documents will be shared with surveyors via a separate secure OneDrive folder, several weeks prior to the onsite survey. They include:

Residency Program Committee minutes and Competence Committee minutes for previous two years
Examples of resident files (one to two trainee files per level and, if there was a trainee in difficulty, this file should be included to show the process followed)

The PGME Accreditation Team will provide more direction about setting up the OneDrive folders.

Practical Considerations

Booking rooms, agenda, ordering food

Preparing your group

It will be important to prepare your group (residents, faculty, committees, administrative staff) prior to the date of the onsite survey. The PGME Accreditation Team will provide more direction about this in the coming months.

September 2024	New PDs/PAs familiarize themselves with CanAMS. All PDs/PAs/EdCons Review: “Narrative Responses" previously entered in CanAMS Required program documents and plan for updating On-going Q-APOR report reviews completed.
October – November 2024	All PDs/PAs/EdCons To Do: Complete previous AFI responses Review previous AFI responses and update as required Respond to new standards in updated instrument Ensure all responses and documents are current (Note this is a 'living document' that will need to be continually updated until August 2025)
2025
February 2025	Program Leaders Workshop: Accreditation and CanAMS guidance (Common responses, sharing best practices, etc.)
Spring 2025	Pre-survey virtual visit by RCPSC and CFPC will occur in the spring or summer. Date to be announced.
August 2025	ALL CANAMS DOCUMENT PREP MUST BE COMPLETED Notify PGME Office when complete
September 2025	OneDrive folder for reviewers created. Begin populating.
October 2025	PGME review of documents completed. Feedback provided to programs for further updating of materials.
November 2025	Revisions of documents as needed. Send draft agenda to PGME. Finalize calendar and room bookings when dates are confirmed.
December 2025	Program Profiles and AFIs submitted to CanAMS by PGME Office Visit agenda finalized
2026
January 2026	OneDrive folder (confidential documents) submitted to PGME, reviewed and amended as needed. Agendas submitted to RCPSC/CFPC. Prep meetings for visit Information session for PAs/PDs early Jan - Programs and PGME meetings Jan and Feb.
February 2026	Program and PGME meetings continue.
March 2026	Specialty Committee requests for additional information and clarifications four weeks before the onsite visit.
April 2026	Program responses to Specialty Committee due within three weeks of the onsite visit. OneDrive (confidential documents) sent electronically to surveyors by PGME Office two weeks prior to the onsite visit.
Sunday, April 26 – Friday, May 1, 2026	ACCREDITATION VISIT

On the day of the Onsite Survey

Meetings

A series of interviews must take place with the Program Director, Division Chair and/or Department Head, Program Assistant, teaching staff, residents, Competence Committee and the Residency Program Committee (or equivalents).  Visits to individual sites will take place as appropriate. There will be a careful assessment of the quality of the program based on the general and specific standards of accreditation as outlined by the respective College(s).

Meeting with the Program Director

The meeting with the Program Director is to ensure that the program structure meets the Accreditation Standards.  Questions may include:

How does the RPC function? Are meetings frequent enough?  How are decisions made?
Is there appropriate representation on the Committee (i.e., Faculty members, Teaching Site Representatives, elected Resident Representatives)?
How does the program review evaluations (of faculty, rotations, teaching sites)? What happens to this information and have any changes been made recently based on these reviews?
Does the program provide opportunities for residents to evaluate the quality of their education?
How do residents and faculty know how to target their teaching and learning on any given rotation?
How are residents provided an opportunity for graded responsibility?
Are exam results consistent or has there been a significant reduction in performance over the last few years?  Are they consistently below the national average?  If so, this may be a sign of a problem in the educational program.
How did the program address weaknesses identified during the last review?
What educational initiatives have been developed or updated since the last review?
How does the program deal with residents in difficulty?

 
Meeting with the Program Assistant

There are new Accreditation Standards relating to the Program Assistant, and this meeting is to explore the PA’s formal role description, role within the program, and relationships with program leadership, residents and the PGME office.  Questions to consider include:

Do you have a role description? Does it accurately reflect your work?  Is it up to date?
Do you receive feedback, formally or informally?
Do you receive opportunities for professional development?

 
Meeting with the Department Head/Division Chair

This meeting serves to identify the involvement of the Head in the Postgraduate program.  
Questions to consider include:

Where does Postgraduate Education fall within the Department’s mandate? 
How much does the Head support the Program Director? 
Are adequate resources available to the program (administrative, financial, physical, material)? And if not, what efforts are being undertaken to obtain resources?

 
Meeting with the Residents

The surveyors will meet with all residents in the program.  In large programs it will be customary to meet separately with the junior residents and senior residents. 

This meeting is to allow the residents to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the program.  The surveyors will emphasize that all discussions will remain confidential and anonymous should there be a need to identify issues in the report.  

Questions to consider include:

Do residents think the program is meeting the specialty training requirements?
Are residents made aware of their educational objectives and are these being met?
Are the residents receiving (enough) feedback?
Do the senior residents feel that the program provides adequate opportunities to develop their skills necessary to function as a specialist physician?
How do residents perceive the service to education balance?  Do they feel there is a good balance between education and service expectations? 
Are there issues of intimidation and harassment in the program?
Do residents feel there is open communication within the program? 
Do residents know where to turn if they have an issue?
What are the strengths of the program?

Meetings with Teaching Faculty, Residency Program Committee (RPC/PGEC) and Competence Committee (or RAC/CCC)

These meetings are to obtain feedback on how the faculty involved in the program perceive the quality of the education and the structure of the program.   It is also an opportunity to question members of the Residency Program Committee, Competence Committee (or equivalent).  Questions to consider include:

Do faculty receive feedback on their teaching? Do they feel their teaching is valued?
How does the program communicate with faculty in the Division/Department?
Is the RPC dealing with issues identified at meetings and is there a follow-up mechanism?
Do members (apart from the PD) understand processes within the program, RPC and CC?
How does the Competence Committee review assessment data and make decisions? How are these decisions communicated back to the residents?