Display options
Cite
Sehlbach C, Govaerts MJ, Mitchell S, et al. Doctors on the move: a European case study on the key characteristics of national recertification systems. BMJ Open. 2018;8(4):e019963doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019963.
Sehlbach, C., Govaerts, M. J., Mitchell, S., Rohde, G. G. U., Smeenk, F. W. J. M., & Driessen, E. W. (2018). Doctors on the move: a European case study on the key characteristics of national recertification systems. BMJ open, 8(4), e019963. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019963
Sehlbach, Carolin, et al. "Doctors on the move: a European case study on the key characteristics of national recertification systems." BMJ open vol. 8,4 (2018): e019963. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019963
Sehlbach C, Govaerts MJ, Mitchell S, Rohde GGU, Smeenk FWJM, Driessen EW. Doctors on the move: a European case study on the key characteristics of national recertification systems. BMJ Open. 2018 Apr 17;8(4):e019963. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019963. PMID: 29666131; PMCID: PMC5905769.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

BMJ Open. 2018 Apr 17;8(4):e019963. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019963.

Doctors on the move: a European case study on the key characteristics of national recertification systems.

BMJ open

Carolin Sehlbach, Marjan J Govaerts, Sharon Mitchell, Gernot G U Rohde, Frank W J M Smeenk, Erik W Driessen

Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Development and Research, SHE, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
  2. Department of Education, European Respiratory Society, Lausanne, Switzerland.
  3. Respiratory Medicine, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany.
  4. Respiratory Medicine, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

PMID: 29666131 PMCID: PMC5905769 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019963

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: With increased cross-border movement, ensuring safe and high-quality healthcare has gained primacy. The purpose of recertification is to ensure quality of care through periodically attesting doctors' professional proficiency in their field. Professional migration and facilitated cross-border recognition of qualifications, however, make us question the fitness of national policies for safeguarding patient care and the international accountability of doctors.

DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed document analyses and conducted 19 semistructured interviews to identify and describe key characteristics and effective components of 10 different European recertification systems, each representing one case (collective case study). We subsequently compared these systems to explore similarities and differences in terms of assessment criteria used to determine process quality.

RESULTS: Great variety existed between countries in terms and assessment formats used, targeting cognition, competence and performance (Miller's assessment pyramid). Recertification procedures and requirements also varied significantly, ranging from voluntary participation in professional development modules to the mandatory collection of multiple performance data in a competency-based portfolio. Knowledge assessment was fundamental to recertification in most countries. Another difference concerned the stakeholders involved in the recertification process: while some systems exclusively relied on doctors' self-assessment, others involved multiple stakeholders but rarely included patients in assessment of doctors' professional competence. Differences between systems partly reflected different goals and primary purposes of recertification.

CONCLUSION: Recertification systems differ substantially internationally with regard to the criteria they apply to assess doctors' competence, their aims, requirements, assessment formats and patient involvement. In the light of professional mobility and associated demands for accountability, we recommend that competence assessment includes patients' perspectives, and recertification practices be shared internationally to enhance transparency. This can help facilitate cross-border movement, while guaranteeing high-quality patient care.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Keywords: continuing professional development; patient safety; performance assessment; professional mobility; quality assurance; recertification

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. N Engl J Med. 2012 Dec 27;367(26):2543-9 - PubMed
  2. Ann Intern Med. 2005 Feb 15;142(4):260-73 - PubMed
  3. Chest. 2009 Mar;135(3 Suppl):42S-48S - PubMed
  4. JAMA. 2009 Nov 11;302(18):2008-14 - PubMed
  5. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2009 Winter;29(1):1-15 - PubMed
  6. N Engl J Med. 2010 Mar 11;362(10):946-7 - PubMed
  7. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2008 Winter;28(1):47-54 - PubMed
  8. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2013 Fall;33 Suppl 1:S20-35 - PubMed
  9. BMC Med Educ. 2006 Dec 15;6:59 - PubMed
  10. JAMA. 1999 Sep 1;282(9):867-74 - PubMed
  11. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016 Oct;91(10 ):1336-1345 - PubMed
  12. Postgrad Med J. 2013 Feb;89(1048):107-10 - PubMed
  13. Med Educ. 2014 Jan;48(1):75-86 - PubMed
  14. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD000259 - PubMed
  15. JAMA. 2006 Sep 6;296(9):1094-102 - PubMed
  16. Med Teach. 2011;33(3):206-14 - PubMed
  17. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2006 Aug;11(3):235-44 - PubMed
  18. Med Teach. 2010;32(10):e453-9 - PubMed
  19. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2015 Spring;35(2):131-8 - PubMed
  20. BMJ. 1999 Oct 30;319(7218):1185-8 - PubMed
  21. Med Care. 2001 Aug;39(8 Suppl 2):II2-45 - PubMed
  22. Acad Med. 1990 Sep;65(9 Suppl):S63-7 - PubMed
  23. N Engl J Med. 2007 Jan 25;356(4):387-96 - PubMed
  24. BMJ. 2005 May 28;330(7502):1265-8 - PubMed
  25. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):651-6 - PubMed
  26. Neurology. 2008 Aug 19;71(8):605-9 - PubMed
  27. Med Educ. 2002 Oct;36(10):925-30 - PubMed
  28. Milbank Q. 2014 Dec;92 (4):754-75 - PubMed
  29. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009 Aug;14(3):399-410 - PubMed
  30. Surgeon. 2013 Jun;11(3):120-4 - PubMed
  31. Health Syst Transit. 2011;13(5):1-266 - PubMed
  32. BMC Med Educ. 2014 Apr 11;14 :76 - PubMed
  33. JAMA. 2002 Jan 9;287(2):226-35 - PubMed
  34. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Apr 15;(2):CD003030 - PubMed
  35. Acad Med. 2012 Dec;87(12 ):1668-78 - PubMed
  36. Acad Med. 2009 Jun;84(6):782-7 - PubMed
  37. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):638-45 - PubMed
  38. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Apr 19;(2):CD000259 - PubMed
  39. BMJ. 2000 Feb 12;320(7232):432-5 - PubMed
  40. BMJ. 2010 Sep 03;341:c4687 - PubMed
  41. Can Urol Assoc J. 2013 Jul-Aug;7(7-8):266-72 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types