Migration and professional mobility: Rural attraction and retention of South African educated physicians.

Rural communities in Alberta, Canada have faced physician shortages for decades. Attracting internationally educated physicians, including many South African physicians, is one way to address this problem. While much of the research on international medical graduates (IMGs) focuses on the push and pull of attraction and retention, I situate the decision to stay as a matter of geographic and professional mobility, all within a life course perspective. More specifically, I explore physicians' decisions to migrate from South Africa to rural Alberta and the impact of professional mobility on their migrations. To understand the processes, I collected data via semi-structured virtual interviews with 29 South African educated generalist/family physicians with experience in rural Alberta. Research was guided by abductive grounded theory and data was analysed using open thematic coding. I found that South African educated physicians made the decision to leave South Africa and to come to Canada to pursue prestige and opportunity they perceived to be inaccessible in South Africa. However, physicians were limited to perceived low prestige work as rural generalists, while they understood that more prestigious work was reserved for Canadian educated physicians. Physicians who remained in rural communities brought their aspirations to life, or achieved upward professional mobility in rural communities, through focused clinical and administrative opportunities. The decision to leave rural communities was often a matter of lifestyle and burnout over prestige.

Moving health professionals as an alternative to moving patients: The contribution of overseas visiting medical specialists to the health system in Malta.

Cross-border healthcare has become a major policy issue in the past years across the European Union. Professional mobility, as a means of providing specialised health services has not been given sufficient attention in both the research and policy agendas. This paper presents a case study of the contribution made by visiting overseas medical specialists to the health system in Malta. Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted. A grounded theory approach was utilised in view of the limited amount of literature available on the subject. Qualitative content analysis revealed one superordinate theme, being the value of the service, and three further subthemes, which include the quality of the service provided, its longevity and durability, as well as the critical contributions of expatriates. The service is an integral component of the local health service. This study makes an important contribution to the literature on cross-border healthcare. Lessons learnt may be transferable to other small island states and territories. The European Reference Networks being developed at EU level may need to focus more on the benefits that can accrue through short term professional mobility than has been the case to date. The findings also serve to propose several important features that need to be in place to increase the chances of longevity, sustainability, quality and cost effectiveness in cross border health care services.

Regulation of nursing professionals in Cambodia and Vietnam: a review of the evolution and key influences.

BACKGROUND: In 2006, the countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) signed the Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRA) in relation to nursing services in the region. This agreement was part of a set of policies to promote the free flow of skilled labor among ASEAN members and required mutually acceptable professional regulatory frameworks. This paper presents a narrative review of the literature to (1) describe progress in the development of the regulatory framework for nursing professionals in Cambodia and Vietnam since 2000 and (2) identify key factors, including the MRA, that affect these processes. METHODS: For document review, policy documents, laws, regulations, and published peer-reviewed and gray literature were reviewed. Data were triangulated and analyzed using a tool developed by adapting McCarthy et al.'s regulatory function framework and covering eight functions (legislation, accreditation of preservice education, competency assessment, registration and licensing system, tools and data flow of registration, scope of practice, continuing professional development, professional misconduct and disciplinary powers). RESULTS: Cambodia and Vietnam have made remarkable progress in developing their regulatory frameworks for nursing. A number of key influences contributed to the development of nursing regulations, including the signing of the MRA in 2006 and the establishment of the Joint Coordinating Committee on Nursing (AJCCN) in 2007 as key milestones. Macroeconomic and political factors affecting the process were economic growth and an emerging private sector, social demand for quality care and professionalism, global attention to health workforce competencies, the role of development partners, and regular monitoring and mutual learning through AJCCN. A period of incubation enabled countries to develop consensus among stakeholders regarding regulatory arrangements; this trend accelerated after 2010 by bringing national regulatory schemes into conformity with the regional framework. Some similarities in the process (e.g., preservice education first, legislation later) and differences in key actors (e.g., professional councils and the capacity of nursing leaders) were observed in two countries. CONCLUSION: Further development of the regulatory framework will require strong nursing leadership to sustain achievements and drive continued progress. The adapted tool to assess regulatory capacity works well and may be of value in assessing the development of regulations in the nursing profession.

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

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.

Mandatory internal mobility in French hospitals: the results of imposed management practices.

AIM: To describe the impact of a mandatory internal mobility policy on nurses working in French state-funded health establishments. BACKGROUND: Public hospitals in France rely on the internal mobility of nursing staff to respond to organisational needs, to reduce costs and to increase productivity. However, there is very little data on the impact of such management practices on the nurses themselves. METHOD: A cross-sectional study, including 3077 nurses from 35 hospitals in the region of Paris, was conducted. Data were collected using a validated self-assessment questionnaire. RESULTS: Forty per cent of French nurses are required to work in different units. This mobility differs according to individual characteristics [age (P = 0.04), length of service (P = 0.017)] and type of environment [hospital (P < 0.0001), specialty (P < 0.0001)]. CONCLUSION: We can distinguish two types of approaches for implementing a mandatory staff nurse mobility policy. The first is an event that is regular, planned and lasts for several days. The second is an event that is irregular, short and organised the day before or the day of the change. Overall, while nurses are dissatisfied with all types of mandatory unit changes, this dissatisfaction is primarily a result of the irregular mobility events. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: This study demonstrates the importance of implementing a planned inter-unit mobility event and proposes recommendations for this type of implementation.

[The professional mobility of hospital nurses]. / La mobilité professionnelle des infirmières hospitalières.

For several decades, hospitals have been faced with the voluntary departures of nurses. In parallel to this external mobility, internal mobility is also on the rise and is not always initiated by the nurse. This new mode of management has repercussions for professionals, patients as well as for the quality of care.

Deciding when physicians are unfit to practise: an analysis of responsibilities, policy and practice in 11 European Union member states.

In 1974, the European Economic Community established mutual recognition of medical qualifications obtained in any of its member states. Subsequently, a series of directives has elaborated on the initial provisions, with the most recent enacted in 2013. However, greater movement of physicians across borders and some high-profile scandals have raised questions about how to prevent a physician sanctioned in one country from simply moving to another, without undermining the principle of free movement. A survey of key informants in 11 European Union (EU) member states was supplemented by a review of peer-reviewed and grey literature, with the results validated by independent reviewers. It examined processes, adjudicative and disciplinary measures that are in place to evaluate physicians about whom concerns arise, and related sanctions, along with other aspects of professional standards and regulation. Overall, responses varied greatly between participating countries, with respect to the institutions responsible for the regulation of medical professions, the investigation processes in place, and the terminology used in each member state. While the types of sanction (removal from the register of medical professionals and/or licence revocation, suspension, dismissal, reprimand, warnings, fines, as well as additional education and training) applied are similar, both the roles of the individuals involved and the level of public disclosure of information vary considerably. However, some key features, such as the involvement of professional peers in disciplinary panels and the involvement of courts in criminal cases, are similar in most member states studied. Given the variation in the regulatory context, individuals and processes involved that is illustrated by our findings, a common understanding of definitions of what constitutes competence to practise, its impairment and its potential impact on patient safety becomes particularly important. Public disclosure of disciplinary outcomes is already applied by some member states, but additional measures should be considered to protect medical professionals from undue consequences.

Exploring the experiences of EU qualified doctors working in the United Kingdom: a qualitative study.

This qualitative study of 23 doctors from other EU member states working in the UK highlights that, contrary to media reports, doctors from other member states working in the UK were well prepared and their main motivation to migrate was to learn new skills and experience a new health care system. Interviewees highlighted some aspects of their employment that work well and others that need improving. Some interviewees reported initially having language problems, but most noted that this was resolved after a few months. These doctors overwhelmingly reported having very positive experiences with patients, enjoying a NHS structure that was less hierarchical structure than in their home systems, and appreciating the emphasis on evidence-based medicine. Interviewees mostly complained about the lack of cleanliness of hospitals and gave some examples of risk to patient safety. Interviewees did not experience discrimination other than some instances of patronising and snobbish behaviour. However, a few believed that their nationality was a block to achieving senior positions. Overall, interviewees reported having enjoyable experiences with patients and appreciating what the NHS had to offer.

How do medical doctors in the European Union demonstrate that they continue to meet criteria for registration and licencing?

This paper reviews procedures for ensuring that physicians in the European Union (EU) continue to meet criteria for registration and the implications of these procedures for cross-border movement of health professionals following implementation of the 2005/36/EC Directive on professional qualifications. A questionnaire was completed by key informants in 10 EU member states, supplemented by a review of peer-reviewed and grey literature and a review conducted by key experts in each country. The questionnaire covered three aspects: actors involved in processes for ensuring continued adherence to standards for registration and/or licencing (such as revalidation), including their roles and functions; the processes involved, including continuing professional development (CPD) and/or continuing medical education (CME); and contextual factors, particularly those impacting professional mobility. All countries included in the study view CPD/CME as one mechanism to demonstrate that doctors continue to meet key standards. Although regulatory bodies in a few countries have established explicit systems of ensuring continued competence, at least for some doctors (in Belgium, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the UK), self-regulation is considered sufficient to ensure that physicians are up to date and fit to practice in others (Austria, Finland, Estonia and Spain). Formal systems vary greatly in their rationale, structure, and coverage. Whereas in Germany, Hungary and Slovenia, systems are exclusively focused on CPD/CME, the Netherlands also includes peer review and minimum activity thresholds. Belgium and the UK have developed more complex mechanisms, comprising a review of complaints or compliments on performance and (in the UK) colleague and patient questionnaires. Systems for ensuring that doctors continue to meet criteria for registration and licencing across the EU are complex and inconsistent. Participation in CPD/CME is only one aspect of maintaining professional competence but it is the only one common to all countries. Thus, there is a need to bring clarity to this confused landscape.

Licensing procedures and registration of medical doctors in the European Union.

The current proposals to update the European Union (EU) directive on professional qualifications will have potentially important implications for health professions. Yet those discussing it will struggle to find basic information on key issues such as licensing and registration of physicians in different countries. A survey was conducted among national experts in 14 EU member states, supplemented by literature and independent expert review. The questionnaire covered five components of licensing and registration: (1) definitions, (2) regulatory basis, (3) governance, (4) the process of registration and (5) flow and quantity of applications. We identify seven areas of concern: (1) the meaning of terminology, which is inconsistent; (2) the role of language assessments and the responsibility for them; (3) whether approval to practise should be lifelong or time limited, subject to periodic assessment; (4) the need for improved systems to identify those deemed no longer fit to practise in one member state; (5) the complexity of processes for graduates from non-EU/European Economic Area (EAA) countries; (6) public access to registers; and (7) transparency of systems of governance. The systems of licensing and registration of doctors in Europe have developed within specific national contexts and vary widely. This creates inevitable problems in the context of free movement of professionals and increasing mobility.

Assessing the role of regulatory bodies in managing health professional issues and errors in Europe.

OBJECTIVE: This paper explores how medical regulatory bodies in nine European countries manage professional issues involving quality and patient safety, to build on limited existing information on procedures for regulating medical professionals in Europe. DESIGN: Twelve vignettes describing scenarios of concerns about standards of physicians were developed, covering clinical, criminal and administrative matters. Medical regulatory bodies in nine European countries were asked what action they would normally take in each situation. Their responses were related to their regulatory mandate. RESULTS: Responses varied greatly across participating countries. Regulators are always involved where patients are at risk or where a criminal offence is committed within the clinical setting. Non-criminal medical issues were generally handled by the employer, if any, at their discretion. Countries varied in the use of punitive measures, the extent to which they took an interest in issues arising outside professional activities, and whether they dealt with issues themselves or referred cases to another regulatory authority or took no action at all. CONCLUSIONS: There is little consistency across Europe on the regulation of medical professionals. There is considerable diversity in the range of topics that regulatory bodies oversee, with almost all covering health care quality and safety and others encompassing issues related to reputation, respect and trust. These inconsistencies have significant implications for professional mobility, patient safety and quality of care.