Health practitioner regulation and national health goals.

The role of health practitioner regulation in ensuring patient safety is well recognized. Less recognized is the role of regulation in addressing broader health system priorities. These goals include managing the costs, capacities and distribution of health professional education institutions; ensuring the competence and equitable distribution of health workers; informing workforce planning and mobilization; enabling the use of digital technologies; and addressing challenges related to the international mobility of health workers. Even where health practitioner regulation is designed to advance these goals, important gaps exist between the potential of regulatory systems and their performance. The response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led many countries to introduce regulatory changes to allow more flexibility and innovations in the mobilization of health practitioners. Building on this experience, we need to critically re-examine health practitioner regulatory systems to ensure that these systems support rather than impede progress towards national health goals. We discuss the role of health practitioner regulation in contemporary health systems, highlighting recent regulatory reforms in selected countries, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. We identify the importance of dynamic, effective and flexible health practitioner regulatory systems in progress towards universal health coverage and health security.

Le rôle qu'exerce la réglementation relative aux professionnels de la santé pour la sécurité du patient est bien connu. En revanche, celui qu'elle joue dans la définition des grandes priorités du système de santé l'est moins. Elle comporte ainsi plusieurs objectifs, notamment: assurer la gestion des coûts, des capacités et de la distribution des établissements de formation des professionnels de la santé; garantir une répartition équitable d'agents de santé compétents; guider la planification et la mobilisation de la main-d'œuvre; permettre l'intégration des technologies numériques; et enfin, relever les défis liés à la mobilité internationale des acteurs du secteur. Même dans les endroits où une telle réglementation est conçue pour atteindre ces objectifs, des écarts considérables subsistent entre le potentiel des systèmes de réglementation et leurs performances réelles. La lutte contre la pandémie de maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) a encouragé de nombreux pays à modifier les règles en vigueur en vue d'offrir une plus grande flexibilité et davantage d'innovations en matière de mobilisation des agents de santé. En nous fondant sur cette expérience, nous devons impérativement réexaminer les systèmes de réglementation propres aux praticiens afin qu'ils constituent un moteur, et non un frein, à la poursuite des objectifs nationaux en matière de santé. Dans le présent document, nous évoquons le rôle de la réglementation relative aux professionnels de la santé dans les systèmes de santé actuels, en mentionnant les récentes réformes entreprises par une série de pays dans ce domaine, y compris durant la pandémie de COVID-19. Nous soulignons également l'importance d'instaurer des systèmes de réglementation dynamiques, efficaces et flexibles pour les praticiens sur la voie menant à la sécurité sanitaire et à une couverture sanitaire universelle.

La función de la reglamentación de los profesionales sanitarios para garantizar la seguridad de los pacientes es bien conocida. Sin embargo, se reconoce menos la función de la reglamentación para atender prioridades más amplias del sistema sanitario. Estos objetivos incluyen: gestionar los costes, las capacidades y la distribución de las instituciones de formación de profesionales sanitarios; asegurar la competencia y la distribución equitativa de los trabajadores sanitarios; informar la planificación y movilización del personal; permitir el uso de tecnologías digitales; y abordar los retos relacionados con la movilidad internacional de los trabajadores sanitarios. Incluso en los casos en que la reglamentación de los profesionales sanitarios está concebida para promover estos objetivos, existen diferencias considerables entre el potencial de los sistemas de reglamentación y sus resultados. La respuesta a la pandemia de enfermedad por coronavirus de 2019 (COVID-19) llevó a muchos países a introducir cambios en la reglamentación para permitir una mayor flexibilidad e innovaciones en la movilización de los profesionales sanitarios. A partir de esta experiencia, es necesario volver a examinar de forma crítica los sistemas de reglamentación de los profesionales sanitarios para garantizar que estos sistemas apoyen y no impidan el progreso hacia los objetivos sanitarios nacionales. En este artículo se analiza la función de la reglamentación de los profesionales de la salud en los sistemas sanitarios contemporáneos y se destacan las recientes reformas reglamentarias introducidas en algunos países, en particular durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Asimismo, se destaca la importancia de que los sistemas de reglamentación de los profesionales sanitarios sean dinámicos, eficaces y flexibles para avanzar hacia la cobertura sanitaria universal y la seguridad sanitaria.

Assessment of graduate public health education in Nepal and perceived needs of faculty and students.

BACKGROUND: Despite the large body of evidence suggesting that effective public health infrastructure is vital to improving the health status of populations, many universities in developing countries offer minimal opportunities for graduate training in public health. In Nepal, for example, only two institutions currently offer a graduate public health degree. Both institutions confer only a general Masters in Public Health (MPH), and together produce 30 graduates per year. The objective of this assessment was to identify challenges in graduate public health education in Nepal, and explore ways to address these challenges. METHODS: The assessment included in-person school visits and data collection through semi-structured in-depth interviews with primary stakeholders of Nepal's public health academic sector. The 72 participants included faculty, students, alumni, and leaders of institutions that offered MPH programs, and the leadership of one government-funded institution that is currently developing an MPH program. Data were analyzed through content analysis to identify major themes. RESULTS: Six themes characterizing the challenges of expanding and improving graduate public health training were identified: 1) a shortage of trained public health faculty, with consequent reliance on the internet to compensate for inadequate teaching resources; 2) teaching/learning cultures and bureaucratic traditions that are not optimal for graduate education; 3) within-institution dominance of clinical medicine over public health; 4) a desire for practice-oriented, contextually relevant training opportunities; 5) a demand for degree options in public health specialties (for example, epidemiology); and 6) a strong interest in international academic collaboration. CONCLUSION: Despite an enormous need for trained public health professionals, Nepal's educational institutions face barriers to developing effective graduate programs. Overcoming these barriers will require: 1) increasing the investment in public health education and 2) improving the academic environment of educational institutions. Long term, committed academic collaborations with international universities may be a realistic way to: 1) redress immediate inadequacies in resources, including teachers; 2) encourage learning environments that promote inquiry, creativity, problem-solving, and critical thinking; and 3) support development of the in-country capacity of local institutions to produce a cadre of competent, well-trained public health practitioners, researchers, teachers, and leaders.

Medical Scholarships Linked to Mandatory Service: The Nepal Experience.

Introduction: Nepal has one of the world's lowest physician to population ratios, with a critical shortage of rural physicians. The Nepal Government uses the private sector to address this shortage of rural physicians. All private medical colleges must offer total scholarships, free of cost, to a proportion of their annual MBBS student intake. These scholarships come with a compulsory two-year service contract, which must be completed at public hospitals post-graduation. The mandatory service requirement was implemented in 2005/2006 and this paper evaluates the first decade of this scholarship program, with particular attention to the mandatory service requirement. Methods: We collected data on MBBS scholarship awardees from the Scholarship Section at the Ministry of Education, Department of Health Services, and the Ministry of Health and evaluated trends, service completion, and location. Results: Initially, because of poor monitoring, the mandatory service completion rate was low. Rates increased to 74-98% when strict rules tied service completion certificates to obtaining medical registration. In the past 4 years, three cohorts of scholarship doctors who completed their service requirements served 78% of their service-days in rural hospitals (primary healthcare centers and district hospitals). Yet, geographic inequities in physician distribution persist. Only 51% of district hospitals had at least one scholarship doctor, 31% of the district hospitals had more than 1.5 scholarship doctors, while 7% had none. The district hospitals in the Central region, which includes the capital city, had twice the number of scholarship doctors compared to the Mid-western region, which includes some of the country's most remote areas. Conclusion: The scholarship program has partially succeeded in reducing the physician shortage in Nepal's rural hospitals. To address the remaining inequities in physician distribution, efficient management systems, appropriate medical training, and support for rural practice are vital.