Isabelle Risso-Gill

Understanding the modifiable health systems barriers to hypertension management in Malaysia: a multi-method health systems appraisal approach

BackgroundThe growing burden of non-communicable diseases in middle-income countries demands models of care that are appropriate to local contexts and acceptable to patients in order to be effective. We describe a multi-method health system appraisal to inform the design of an intervention that will be used in a cluster randomized controlled trial to improve hypertension control in Malaysia.MethodsA health systems appraisal was undertaken in the capital, Kuala Lumpur, and poorer-resourced rural sites in Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah. Building on two systematic reviews of barriers to hypertension control, a conceptual framework was developed that guided analysis of survey data, documentary review and semi-structured interviews with key informants, health professionals and patients. The analysis followed the patients as they move through the health system, exploring the main modifiable system-level barriers to effective hypertension management, and seeking to explain obstacles to improved access and health outcomes.ResultsThe study highlighted the need for the proposed intervention to take account of how Malaysian patients seek treatment in both the public and private sectors, and from western and various traditional practitioners, with many patients choosing to seek care across different services. Patients typically choose private care if they can afford to, while others attend heavily subsidised public clinics. Public hypertension clinics are often overwhelmed by numbers of patients attending, so health workers have little time to engage effectively with patients. Treatment adherence is poor, with a widespread belief, stemming from concepts of traditional medicine, that hypertension is a transient disturbance rather than a permanent asymptomatic condition. Drug supplies can be erratic in rural areas. Hypertension awareness and education material are limited, and what exist are poorly developed and ineffective.ConclusionDespite having a relatively well funded health system offering good access to care, Malaysias health system still has significant barriers to effective hypertension management.DiscussionThe study uncovered major patient-related barriers to the detection and control of hypertension which will have an impact on the design and implementation of any hypertension intervention. Appropriate models of care must take account of the patient modifiable health systems barriers if they are to have any realistic chance of success; these findings are relevant to many countries seeking to effectively control hypertension despite resource constraints.

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.

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.

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 training and scope of practice of GPs in England, Germany and Spain

OBJECTIVE To explore general practitioner (GP) training, continuing professional development, scope of practice, ethical issues and challenges in the working environment in three European countries. METHOD Qualitative study of 35 GPs from England, Germany and Spain working in urban primary care practices. Participants were recruited using convenience and snowball sampling techniques. Semi-structured interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed by four independent researchers adopting a thematic approach. RESULTS Entrance to and length of GP training differ between the three countries, while continuing professional development is required in all three, although with different characteristics. Key variations in the scope of practice include whether there is a gatekeeping role, whether GPs work in multidisciplinary teams or singlehandedly, the existence of appraisal processes, and the balance between administrative and clinical tasks. However, similar challenges, including the need to adapt to an ageing population, end-of-life care, ethical dilemmas, the impact of austerity measures, limited time for patients and gaps in coordination between primary and secondary care are experienced by GPs in all three countries. CONCLUSION Primary health care variations have strong historical roots, derived from the different national experiences and the range of clinical services delivered by GPs. There is a need for an accessible source of information for GPs themselves and those responsible for safety and quality standards of the healthcare workforce. This paper maps out the current situation before Brexit is being implemented in the UK which could see many of the current EU arrangements and legislation to assure professional mobility between the UK and the rest of Europe dismantled.