RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In the last years, there have been increasing concerns about the safety and traceability of human tissues and cells in Europe. In order to regulate this part of medical practice, the European Commission issued 3 directives between 2004 and 2006 and endorsed EUROCET to support member states in fulfilling some of their obligations. MATHODS: EUROCET created a connection with the European Union (EU) Competent Authorities (CAs) and set up a website where lists of the CAs, the authorized Tissue Establishments (TEs) and the activity data are published and updated. Moreover, EUROCET is involved within the Vigilance and Surveillance of Substances of Human Origin (SOHO V&S) project, aiming to support the EU member states in the establishment of vigilance and surveillance systems for tissues and cells. EUROCET is also working with EU stakeholders to develop a common coding system concerning donation and products. RESULTS: There are 33 countries in EUROCET and 57 CAs. 3,974 TEs are recorded: 1,108 for tissues, 1,480 for haematopoietic progenitor cells and 1,386 for assisted reproduction. On the website, it is possible to find the 2010 activity data report. CONCLUSION: Based on its cooperation with the CAs, EUROCET represents them in the European network. Nowadays, the EU member states can rely on a web portal and database in order to put the tissue and cell directives into practice.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The main objective of the joint action MODE is the transfer of best-practices in the field of organ donation and transplantation and the creation of positive synergies among participating European (EU) Member States (MS) apt to support authorities in possible decision-making and policy contexts. METHODS: The consortium has chosen to foster the exchange of best-practice through a series of exchange visits followed by the provision of a set of specialized trainings.Each participating MS has presented its strengths and weaknesses through a questionnaire based on the Organ Action Plan. Once the situation was clearer, countries with the strongest program organized and hosted the on-site visits and each country had the opportunity to perform five exchange visits on five selected topics.Specific courses for healthcare staff of organ coordinating and transplantation centres were organized. Based on evaluation of the results of the on-site visits and training needs indicated by the partners, the chosen topics were:⢠reporting on adverse events and reactions⢠quality assurance programme of the donation process in Spain⢠quality assurance of the transplantation process RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The outcome is that within the EU, even among MS with well-developed services, the organ donation and transplantation activity has substantial differences so that all participating countries would benefit from investigating foreign donation and transplant systems. Collaboration at EU level can be beneficial for all systems and the joint action MODE indicated that in some countries the sharing of expertise across the EU Member States has already proved to be useful in starting a virtuous circle in organization and training that would allow to increase organ donor rates and improve overall performance.