Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26407378›Full record

ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2015

Deciding when physicians are unfit to practise: an analysis of responsibilities, policy and practice in 11 European Union member states.

Verena Struckmann, Dimitra Panteli, Helena Legido-Quigley, Isabelle Risso-Gill, Martin McKee, Reinhard Busse

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Verena StruckmannDepartment of Health Care Management, Berlin University of Technology, Berlin, Germany verena.struckmann@tu-berlin.de.
Dimitra PanteliDepartment of Health Care Management, Berlin University of Technology, Berlin, Germany.
Helena Legido-QuigleySaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Isabelle Risso-GillLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Martin McKeeLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Reinhard BusseDepartment of Health Care Management, Berlin University of Technology, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 1974, the European Economic Community established mutual recognition of medical qualifications obtained in any of its member states. Subsequently, a series of directives has elaborated on the initial provisions, with the most recent enacted in 2013. However, greater movement of physicians across borders and some high-profile scandals have raised questions about how to prevent a physician sanctioned in one country from simply moving to another, without undermining the principle of free movement. A survey of key informants in 11 European Union (EU) member states was supplemented by a review of peer-reviewed and grey literature, with the results validated by independent reviewers. It examined processes, adjudicative and disciplinary measures that are in place to evaluate physicians about whom concerns arise, and related sanctions, along with other aspects of professional standards and regulation. Overall, responses varied greatly between participating countries, with respect to the institutions responsible for the regulation of medical professions, the investigation processes in place, and the terminology used in each member state. While the types of sanction (removal from the register of medical professionals and/or licence revocation, suspension, dismissal, reprimand, warnings, fines, as well as additional education and training) applied are similar, both the roles of the individuals involved and the level of public disclosure of information vary considerably. However, some key features, such as the involvement of professional peers in disciplinary panels and the involvement of courts in criminal cases, are similar in most member states studied. Given the variation in the regulatory context, individuals and processes involved that is illustrated by our findings, a common understanding of definitions of what constitutes competence to practise, its impairment and its potential impact on patient safety becomes particularly important. Public disclosure of disciplinary outcomes is already applied by some member states, but additional measures should be considered to protect medical professionals from undue consequences.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetencePolicyEmploymentEuropean UnionHumansPhysiciansSpecializationDirective on Professional Qualificationsdisciplinary processesEUlitigationPhysician competence to practiseprofessional mobilitysanctions

Identifiers

PMID26407378
PMCPMC4952791

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.