Search

Purpose: National physician validation systems aim to ensure lifelong learning through periodic appraisals of physicians’ competence. Their effectiveness is determined by physicians’ acceptance of and commitment to the system. This study, therefore, sought to explore physicians’ perceptions and self-reported acceptance of validation across three different physician validation systems in Europe. Materials and methods: Using a constructivist grounded-theory approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 32 respiratory specialists from three countries with markedly different validation systems: Germany, which has a mandatory, credit-based system oriented to continuing professional development; Denmark, with mandatory annual dialogs and ensuing, non-compulsory activities; and the UK, with a mandatory, portfolio-based revalidation system. We analyzed interview data with a view to identifying factors influencing physicians’ perceptions and acceptance. Results: Factors that influenced acceptance were the assessment’s authenticity and alignment of its requirements with clinical practice, physicians’ beliefs about learning, perceived autonomy, and organizational support. Conclusions: Users’ acceptance levels determine any system’s effectiveness. To support lifelong learning effectively, national physician validation systems must be carefully designed and integrated into daily practice. Involving physicians in their design may render systems more authentic and improve alignment between individual ambitions and the systems’ goals, thereby promoting acceptance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© 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.)