Главная

О журнале |  Архив |  Текущий номер |  Подписка |  Авторам |  Контакты      


Журнал "Проблемы стандартизации в здравоохранении"

Современные тенденции в вопросах ОБЕСПЕЧЕНИЯ необходимого уровня профессиональных компетенций врачей в странах Европы

О.В. Андреева, А.А. Саитгареева, В.В. Одинцова, М.С. Голод, Л.Р. Галустова

Научно-практический центр стратегических разработок Департамента здравоохранения Москвы

Первый Московский государственный медицинский университет им. И.М. Сеченова

 

Выявлены особенности и тенденции развития зарубежных систем непрерывного образования и переаттестации врачей на современном этапе. Проведен анализ методических походов к организации непрерывного медицинского обучения в различных странах, рассматривается вопрос о стандартизации медицинского образования. Представлен сравнительный анализ роли регламентирующих органов в оценке профессиональной компетентности врачей за рубежом.

Ключевые слова: непрерывное медицинское образование, переаттестация (ревалидация) врачей, стандарты медицинского образования.

 

TRENDS IN ENSURING THE NECESSARY LEVEL OF PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCIES OF DOCTORS IN EUROPE

Andreeva O.V., Saitgareeva A.A., Odintsova V.V., Golod M.S., Galustova L.R.

 

The main purpose of this paper is to determine the characteristics and trends of foreign systems of continuing medical education and recertification at the present stage. The authors carried out a detailed analysis of the continuing medical education systems in different countries, the issue of standardization of medical education. A comparative analysis of the role of the regulatory authorities

in the assessment of doctors professional competence abroad is presented.

Key words: continuing medical education, recertification (revalidation) of physicians, medical education standards

 

 

Литература

1.  Chen J. et al. Physician board certification and the care and outcomes of elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction // Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2006. Vol. 21. P. 238–244.

2.  Consultation regarding Community action on health services. Brussels, European Commission. 2006 (SEC (2006) 1195/4).

3.  Jamtvedt G et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2006, (2):CD000259.

4.  Marshall S, Haywood K, Fitzpatrick R. Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review // Journal of Evaluation inClinical Practice. 2006. Vol. 12. P. 559–568.

5.                Вартанян Ф.Е. Развитие медицинского образования на современном этапе, электронный журнал «Аккредитация в образовании». 2009. Avaiableat. URL: http: // www.akvobr.ru/razvitie_ medicinskogo_obrazovanija_na_sovremennom_etape.html (дата обращения: 21.05.2014 г.).

6.  Постникова Е. В. Правовое регулирование признания профессиональных квалификаций в сфере предоставления услуг в Европейском Союзе, электронный журнал «NB: Международное право». 2013. Avaiable at: URL: http://e-notabene.ru/wl/article_592.html (дата обращения: 19.04.2014 г.).

7.  European Commission. Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications of 30 September 2005 // Official Journal of the European Communities. 2005. L 255. Р. 22–143.

8.  Beyer M et al. The development of quality circles/peer review groups as a method of quality improvement in Europe. Results of a survey in 26 European countries //Family Practice. 2003. № 20. Р. 443–451.

9.  Medical errors. Brussels, European Commission, 2006 (Special Eurobarometer 241. Avaiable at. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_information/documents/eb_64_en.pdf, accessed 25 April 2008) (дата обращения: 13.05.2014 г.).

10.           Department of Health. White paper: trust, assurance and safety – the regulation of health professionals in the 21st century. London, The Stationery Office, 2007.

11.           Donaldson L. Good doctors, safer patients: proposals to strengthen the system to assure and improve the performance of doctors and to protect the safety of patients. London, Department of Health, 2006.

12.           Forsetlund L., Bjшrndal A., Rashidian A., Jamtvedt G., O’Brien M.A., Wolf F., Davis D., Odgaard-Jensen J., Oxman A.D. Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional Practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database SystRev. 2009 Apr 15 (2): CD003030.

13.           Dauphinee W.D. Self regulation must be made to work. British Medical Journal, 2005. № 330. Р. 1385–1387.

14.           Beyer M. et al. The development of quality circles/peer review groups as a method of quality improvement in Europe. Results of a survey in 26 European countries // Family Practice. 2003. № 20. Р. 443–451.

15.           Overeem K. et al. Doctor performance assessment in daily practice: does it help doctors or not? A systematic review // Medical Education. 2007. № 41. Р. 1039–1049.

16.           D’Autume C., Postel-Vinay D. Mission relative à l’organisationjuridique, administrative etfinancière de la formation continue des professions médicales et paramédicales. Paris, Inspection Générale des Affaires Sociales, 2006.

17.           Khaliq A.A. et al. Disciplinary action against physicians: who is likely to get disciplined? //American Journal of Medicine. 2005. Vol. 118. Р. 773–777.

18.           Awareness of and attitudes toward board-certification of physicians. Research for the American Board of Internal Medicine. Princeton, Gallup Organization, 2003. Avaiable at: URL: http://www.abim.org/pdf/publications/Gallup_Report.pdf, accessed 25 April 2008 (дата обращения: 27.05.2014 г.).

19.           St George I., Kaigas T., McAvoy P. Assessing the competence of practicing physicians in New Zealand, Canada, and the United Kingdom: progress and problems //Family Medicine. 2004. № 36. Р. 172–177.

20.           Sutherland K, Leatherman S. Does certification improve medical standards? // British Medical Journal. 2006. № 333. Р. 439–441.

21.           Attitudes to medical regulation and revalidation of doctors research among doctors and the general public. London, Market & Opinion Research International Ltd, 2005.

22.           General Medical Council. Revalidation. GMC Today, 2007, May: 8–9.

23.           Effectiveness of Continuous Professional Development. Final report. College of Emergency Medicine, 2010. Avaiable at: URL: http://www.gmc-uk.org/Effectiveness_of_CPD_Final_Report.pdf_34306281.pdf. (дата обращения: 27.05.2014 г.).

24.           Davis D et al. Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review // Journal of the American Medical Association. 2006. № 296. Р. 1094–1102.

25.           Grant J. The Good CPD Guide, Second Edition. A practical guide to managed continuing professional development in medicine. Radcliffe. ISBN 978 184619 570 9, October 2011.

26.           Merkur S. еt  al. Обеспечивает ли система непрерывного обучения и переаттестации поддержание необходимого профессионального уровня врачей? Копенгаген, Европейское региональное бюро ВОЗ, 2008 URL: http://www.euro.who.int/document/hsm/9_hsc08_rPB_12.pdf (дата обращения: 23.02.2010 г.).

27.           Guideline of the Austrian Medical Chamber on CME. Vienna, Austrian Medical Chamber, 2004.

28.           Peck C et al. Continuing medical education and continuing professional development: international comparisons // British Medical Journal. 2000.  № 320. Р. 432–435.

29.           GualA et al. Doctors in Spain: an old country, old and new structures, and a new future // The Clinical Teacher. 2005. Vol. 2 (1). P. 59–63.

30.            

31.           Continuing Professional Development (CPD). A summary of the state of knowledge about physician training, 2012. Avaiable at: URL: http://www.sls.se/Global/cpd/cpd2012_english.pdf (дата обращения 02.06.2014 г.).

32.           Khan W. Continuing professional development (CPD); What should we do? Bangladesh Journal of Medical Education. 2010. Vol. 1. № 1. Р. 37-44.



Programming & design
by I.S.0pаrin