����TV

Background:

The Australian Medical Council (AMC) has been working collaboratively with specialist medical colleges and jurisdictional health departments on the implementation of and the recommendations contained in the .

The NHPO report found there was variation in the approaches of colleges to operationalise accreditation standards and considered there would be benefit in the AMC setting expectations on the requirements for accreditation assessment processes. To align with Ministerial Policy Direction 2023-01, the AMC developed Model Standards for a uniform process for accreditation decisions. Individual colleges are able to incorporate College Specific Requirements (CSRs) to ensure vital criteria can be included where these are not covered by the Model Standards. The common terminology, to be used by all colleges regarding accreditation standards and decisions, will create a more consistent approach and decrease confusion for stakeholders.

As early adopters of the AMC Model Standards, RANZCOG have created a revised version of:

• the Accreditation Standards and Criteria,
• the Process and Guidelines

In addition to this, the accreditation team has also developed guideline documents to support implementation for various stakeholders. This includes an Evidence Guide for Training Sites.

What changes you will expect to see:

While accreditation activities will be functionally similar, the College has identified the significant changes as follows:

• The existing standards are listed under six major subheadings. A thorough review and comparison of the existing standards against the new model standards revealed a high degree of similarity. While there are minor changes in the wording, the overall intent is fundamentally unchanged. From February 2026, the accreditation standards will be listed under four domains:
  1. 1. Trainee Health and Welfare,
     2. Supervision, Management and Support Structures,
     3. Educational and Clinical Training Opportunities, and
     4. Educational Resources, Facilities and Equipment.

Greater detail of each domain and criterion can be found in the Accreditation Standards and Criteria.

• There will be a shift to uniform terminology for assessing criteria, with outcome ratings to be labelled as “met”, “substantially met” or “not met” and new terminology to describe the overall outcome of accreditation as “Accredited”, “Conditionally Accredited” or “Not Accredited.” The term “Provisionally Accredited” will only apply to new training sites for the first 12 months, it will no longer be used for existing sites. While a site may have accreditation “revoked,” “refused” or “lapsed,” site suspension will no longer be an option. Please refer to Section 9. Decision-making processes (in the Processes and Guidelines) for an explanation of each category and how they will be applied.
• Section 9. Decision-making processes also includes a risk matrix. The matrix is designed to determine the level of risk to guide decisions around accreditation outcomes.

Stronger definitions and transparency around procedural fairness.

All hospitals accredited to deliver FRANZCOG training will be assessed using the revised version for all accreditation activities undertaken from 1 February 2026.

How you will be supported in this transition:

The RANZCOG Accreditation Team have worked to enable a smooth transition to the new standards and processes from 1 February 2026.

To align with the new documentation, the Accreditation Team will update, assess and amend accreditation outcomes to align with the new standards and processes. This includes reassessing any site listed as “suspended,” which will become an obsolete term under the new guidelines. Similarly, a site with “Provisional Accreditation” will have recommendations/conditions assessed against the risk matrix and their accreditation status will be amended accordingly against the new standards.

Furthermore, new resources are being created to support stakeholders to understand and apply the incoming standards and processes. This will include guidelines on the evidence we will use to assess each criterion.

Communications:

Accreditation Standards Communiqué

A version of this letter has been sent directly to the following stakeholders, either by email or Integrate notification:

• Heads of Department (or equivalent)
• Chief Executive Officer
• Local jurisdiction contacts (in alignment with the )
• ITP Coordinators
• FRANZCOG Training Supervisors