ABSTRACT
A Working Group on Medical Passports was established in 2002 by the International Association of Medical Regulatory Authorities. The goal of this group was to develop a fast-track registration process for highly qualified medical practitioners wishing to move from one jurisdiction to another. A "medical passport" would be available only to practitioners who meet or exceed certain well-defined gold-standard educational, examination, and practice requirements. These standards are the core elements of the international medical passport. Each physician would need to satisfy a series of comprehensive requirements to be eligible for this fast-track, expedited treatment. A medical passport system would ease the movement of highly qualified physicians between countries while contributing to the broader dissemination of scientific knowledge and education. Significant progress has been made, but many issues need further study before the medical passport is ready for piloting.
Subject(s)
Emigration and Immigration , International Cooperation , Licensure, Medical , Physicians/standards , Education, Medical , Medically Underserved Area , Physicians/supply & distributionABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare programs designed to assess the performance of practicing doctors in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. METHODS: Senior representatives of 11 organizations undertaking performance assessments were invited to provide a description of their programs, using a standardized written questionnaire. RESULTS: Collectively, the 11 organizations provide 16 performance assessment programs that operate on three levels: those that screen populations of doctors (Level 1), those that target "at risk" groups (Level 2), and those that assess individuals who may be performing poorly (Level 3). The 16 programs differ in such areas as the number of doctors enrolled, the number of assessments undertaken, the referral mechanisms, the outcomes of assessment, and in the resources provided for the task. They particularly differ in their choice of tools to assess performance. CONCLUSION: Although a uniform international approach to performance assessment may be neither feasible nor desirable, an international comparison of current practice, as provided in this report, should stimulate further debate on the development of better performance assessment processes.
