ArticleBMJ open2018
Doctors on the move: a European case study on the key characteristics of national recertification systems.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Design, delivery and effectiveness of health practitioner regulation systems: an integrative review.Human resources for health · 2023Pooled it
- Patient and public involvement in medical performance processes: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019Pooled it
- Principles to award learning achievements for lifelong learning in health using micro-credentials: an international Delphi study.Human resources for health · 2025Article
- Exploring factors of physicians' preferences for continuing medical education.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- A Changing Landscape for Lifelong Learning in Health Globally.Journal of CME · 2023Article
- Stakeholder Involvement in Lifelong Learning: Lessons Learnt from Various Countries and Approaches to Recertification and CPD.Journal of CME · 2023Article
- Portfolios with Evidence of Reflective Practice Required by Regulatory Bodies: An Integrative Review.Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada · 2022Article
- Doctors' maintenance of professional competence: a qualitative study informed by the theory of planned behaviour.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Maintenance of certification for radiologists: an overview of European countries.Insights into imaging · 2020Article
- Perceptions of people with respiratory problems on physician performance evaluation-A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- Reforming regulatory relationships: The impact of medical revalidation on doctors, employers, and the General Medical Council in the United Kingdom.Regulation & governance · 2019Article
- Meeting challenges in delivery of patient care: a reflection on the involvement of ERS in CPD of respiratory physicians.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2019Article
- Policing the profession? Regulatory reform, restratification and the emergence of Responsible Officers as a new locus of power in UK medicine.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2018Article
- ERS Congress highlight: educational forum on continuing professional development.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWith 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
settingWe 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.
resultsGreat 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.
conclusionRecertification 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.