Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29666131›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

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

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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 · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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.

Carolin SehlbachDepartment of Educational Development and Research, SHE, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9732-1377
Marjan J GovaertsDepartment of Educational Development and Research, SHE, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Sharon MitchellDepartment of Education, European Respiratory Society, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Gernot G U RohdeRespiratory Medicine, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany.
Frank W J M SmeenkDepartment of Educational Development and Research, SHE, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Erik W DriessenDepartment of Educational Development and Research, SHE, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CertificationClinical CompetencePhysiciansEuropeHumansProfessional CompetenceQuality of Health Carecontinuing professional developmentpatient safetyperformance assessmentprofessional mobilityquality assurancerecertification

Identifiers

PMID29666131
PMCPMC5905769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.