Variations in regulations to control standards for training and licensing of physicians: a multi-country comparison.
Governance
Human resources
Medical training
Journal
Human resources for health
ISSN: 1478-4491
Titre abrégé: Hum Resour Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170535
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 07 2021
23 07 2021
Historique:
received:
11
03
2021
accepted:
08
07
2021
entrez:
24
7
2021
pubmed:
25
7
2021
medline:
25
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To strengthen health systems, the shortage of physicians globally needs to be addressed. However, efforts to increase the numbers of physicians must be balanced with controls on medical education imparted and the professionalism of doctors licensed to practise medicine. We conducted a multi-country comparison of mandatory regulations and voluntary guidelines to control standards for medical education, clinical training, licensing and re-licensing of doctors. We purposively selected seven case-study countries with differing health systems and income levels: Canada, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, UK and USA. Using an analytical framework to assess regulations at four sequential stages of the medical education to relicensing pathway, we extracted information from: systematically collected scientific and grey literature and online news articles, websites of regulatory bodies in study countries, and standardised input from researchers and medical professionals familiar with rules in the study countries. The strictest controls we identified to reduce variations in medical training, licensing and re-licensing of doctors between different medical colleges, and across different regions within a country, include: medical education delivery restricted to public sector institutions; uniform, national examinations for medical college admission and licensing; and standardised national requirements for relicensing linked to demonstration of competence. However, countries analysed used different combinations of controls, balancing the strictness of controls across the four stages. While there is no gold standard model for medical education and practise regulation, examining the combinations of controls used in different countries enables identification of innovations and regulatory approaches to address specific contextual challenges, such as decentralisation of regulations to sub-national bodies or privatisation of medical education. Looking at the full continuum from medical education to licensing is valuable to understand how countries balance the strictness of controls at different stages. Further research is needed to understand how regulating authorities, policy-makers and medical associations can find the right balance of standardisation and context-based flexibility to produce well-rounded physicians.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
To strengthen health systems, the shortage of physicians globally needs to be addressed. However, efforts to increase the numbers of physicians must be balanced with controls on medical education imparted and the professionalism of doctors licensed to practise medicine.
METHODS
We conducted a multi-country comparison of mandatory regulations and voluntary guidelines to control standards for medical education, clinical training, licensing and re-licensing of doctors. We purposively selected seven case-study countries with differing health systems and income levels: Canada, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, UK and USA. Using an analytical framework to assess regulations at four sequential stages of the medical education to relicensing pathway, we extracted information from: systematically collected scientific and grey literature and online news articles, websites of regulatory bodies in study countries, and standardised input from researchers and medical professionals familiar with rules in the study countries.
RESULTS
The strictest controls we identified to reduce variations in medical training, licensing and re-licensing of doctors between different medical colleges, and across different regions within a country, include: medical education delivery restricted to public sector institutions; uniform, national examinations for medical college admission and licensing; and standardised national requirements for relicensing linked to demonstration of competence. However, countries analysed used different combinations of controls, balancing the strictness of controls across the four stages.
CONCLUSIONS
While there is no gold standard model for medical education and practise regulation, examining the combinations of controls used in different countries enables identification of innovations and regulatory approaches to address specific contextual challenges, such as decentralisation of regulations to sub-national bodies or privatisation of medical education. Looking at the full continuum from medical education to licensing is valuable to understand how countries balance the strictness of controls at different stages. Further research is needed to understand how regulating authorities, policy-makers and medical associations can find the right balance of standardisation and context-based flexibility to produce well-rounded physicians.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34301245
doi: 10.1186/s12960-021-00629-5
pii: 10.1186/s12960-021-00629-5
pmc: PMC8299694
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
91Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/T02349X/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Pak J Med Sci. 2018 Nov-Dec;34(6):1439-1444
pubmed: 30559800
Hum Resour Health. 2018 Aug 22;16(1):40
pubmed: 30134928
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2009 Winter;29(1):58-62
pubmed: 19288575
Acad Med. 2021 Apr 1;96(4):483
pubmed: 33782235
Med Educ Online. 2006 Dec;11(1):4585
pubmed: 28253782
Lancet. 2019 Jun 8;393(10188):2288
pubmed: 31180021
BMJ Open. 2017 Jul 13;7(7):e015145
pubmed: 28710208
Hum Resour Health. 2015 Dec 04;13:93
pubmed: 26637305
Hum Resour Health. 2020 Oct 20;18(1):71
pubmed: 33076909
Clin Med (Lond). 2014 Jun;14(3):229-38
pubmed: 24889564
BMJ. 2015 Jan 21;350:h237
pubmed: 25608848
Lancet. 2010 Dec 4;376(9756):1875-7
pubmed: 21112621
Milbank Q. 2005;83(4):691-729
pubmed: 16279964
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Aug;5(8):
pubmed: 32868269
Lancet. 2011 Mar 26;377(9771):1113-21
pubmed: 21074256
Acad Med. 2014 May;89(5):712-4
pubmed: 24667515
Bull World Health Organ. 2017 May 1;95(5):368-374
pubmed: 28479638
Lancet. 2010 Dec 4;376(9756):1923-58
pubmed: 21112623
Soc Sci Med. 2019 Aug;234:112369
pubmed: 31238286
Lancet. 2016 Oct 15;388(10054):1922-1929
pubmed: 27339756
BMC Health Serv Res. 2009 Dec 15;9:232
pubmed: 20003505
Clin Med (Lond). 2014 Dec;14(6):633-9
pubmed: 25468850
N Engl J Med. 2014 Mar 6;370(10):950-7
pubmed: 24597868
Ann Eye Sci. 2017 Jul;2:
pubmed: 30246173
Health Serv Res. 2018 Jun;53(3):1682-1701
pubmed: 28419451
Lancet. 2014 Aug 30;384(9945):819-27
pubmed: 25176552
J Eur CME. 2018 Apr 04;7(1):1454251
pubmed: 29755849
BMJ. 2016 May 06;353:i2597
pubmed: 27154910
Hum Resour Health. 2020 Oct 20;18(1):72
pubmed: 33076923
J Econ Perspect. 2008 Spring;22(2):93-114
pubmed: 19768841
Hum Resour Health. 2019 Jul 5;17(1):50
pubmed: 31277652
Hum Resour Health. 2020 Feb 11;18(1):10
pubmed: 32046723