From accreditation to quality mediation practice Next steps?

Quality professional standards for mediators, both in Australia and overseas, have largely focused on minimum standards required for accreditation of practitioners and the ongoing maintenance or practice standards. The implications of this approach for quality vary, as the entry hurdle can be high or low (aspirational or realizable), and ongoing practice standards can be onerous or otherwise. Certainly, appropriate standards can make an important contribution to practitioner competence and the delivery of good practice. However, there are limitations to this approach for consumers, for practice and for the quality culture that is created. An extension of the standards approach may involve the development of a quality framework which can be viewed as requiring more than reaching a benchmark or standard of practice. Instead it can be regarded as the systems, processes and procedures that promote best practice and continuous improvement, as well as minimising risks and poor practice (Commonwealth Attorney Generals Department, 2001). Recent research has suggested that while the NMAS may minimise risks it may not necessarily promote excellence in practise excellence and best practice will require more.Many quality systems designers suggest that in order to entrench quality systems and outcomes, it is important to create a quality culture rather than a compliance culture. This means a culture committed to continual enhancement of its quality rather than just making sure that a framework meets the minimum standards required (Syme) In the conflict resolution area, this may require ensuring that practitioners who are involved in facilitative processes are valued, and that an environment that promotes innovation and high quality services is fostered.