Concerns Over CAAM-HP Accreditation Practices

Recent scrutiny of the Caribbean Accreditation Authority for Education in Medicine and Other Health Professions (CAAM-HP) has raised questions about fairness, transparency, and conflicts of interest in its accreditation process.

One major issue is the composition of site visit committees, which sometimes include members from the school under review or from competing institutions. This practice undermines the credibility of decisions and raises concerns about bias. Similarly, the involvement of representatives from for-profit private colleges on CAAM-HP’s board has fueled skepticism about impartiality.

Critics also point to inconsistencies in accreditation outcomes. For example, Ross University retained accreditation while operating from a cruise ship until 2019, while other institutions faced stricter evaluations. Public universities such as the University of the West Indies and the University of Guyana have generally received longer accreditations, seen by some as preferential treatment.

Transparency is another concern. The CAAM-HP website has not been meaningfully updated since 2018, and unlike other accrediting bodies such as the Accreditation Commission on Colleges of Medicine (ACCM), CAAM-HP does not disclose its board membership. This lack of openness contrasts with international norms and undermines trust in the organization’s operations.

These issues have led to speculation that governments and global regulators such as the World Federation for Medical Education (WFME) may intervene. In the meantime, students are urged to carefully review accreditation status through trusted sources like the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) and to consider institutions accredited by more transparent agencies such as ACCM.

Ultimately, accreditation requires independence, consistency, and transparency. Without these safeguards, the credibility of the process and the future of students relying on it are at risk.