|
UEMS
SPECIALIST SECTION OF PATHOLOGY
EUROPEAN BOARD OF PATHOLOGY
MINUTES OF THE 22nd MEETING HELD IN ATHENS, GREECE
ON APRIL 29, 2006
Venue: Airotel Stratos Vassilikos
1. OPENING, WELCOME AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Professor Patsouris welcomed the delegates to Athens
on his own and Dr. Barbatis' behalf. Prof. Dirk Ruiter
gave this thanks to hosts, opened the session at 9.00
a.m. and welcomed the delegates.
Present:
Nils-Petter Aardal (NO), Calypso Barbatis (GR), Birgitte
Bruun-Rasmussen (DK), Carlo Capella (IT), Olli Carpén
(FI), Felix Cruz-Sanchez (Euro-CNS/ES), Claude Cuvelier
(BE), Anna Kadar (HU), Peter Kelly (IE), Gisela Kempny
(DE), Nigel Kirkham (UK), Arvydas Laurinavicius (LT),
Gamze Mocan Kuzey (TR), Javier Pardo (ES), Efstratios
Patsouris (EL), Dirk Ruiter (NL) Christer Sundström
(SE), Sven Seiwerth (HR), Francoise Thivolet-Bejui
(FR), Trine Thorborg (Junior Pathologists/DK), Alain
Verhest (Cytology/BE), and Veli-Pekka Lehto (FI)
Apologies for absence:
Cecilie Alfsen (NO), Michael den Bakker (NL), Nesimi
Buyukbabani (TR), C. Capesius-Kisliakoff (LU), Enn
Joeste (EE), Inga Gudinaviciene (LT), Andres Kulla
(EE), Bernard Maillet (USMS), Etienne Marbaix (BE),
Robert Maurer (SW), Jaime Prat (ES), Carsten Rygaard
(DK), René Scheiden (LU), Roderick Simpson (ESP/UK),
Jan G. van den Tweel (NL), James Underwood (UK), Laszlo
Vass (HU), Nina Zidar (SI)
2. INTRODUCTION OF NEW DELEGATES
The following new delegates were introduced and welcomed:
Professor Olli Carpén (Turku, Finland, replacing
Professor Eero Saksela), Professor Sven Seiwerth, Zagreb,
Croatia, replacing Professor Jasminka Jakic-Razumovic),
and Dr. Trine Thorborg (representative of the European
Junior Doctor's Association).
3. MINUTES OF THE HELSINKI MEETING (2005)
The minutes of the Helsinki Meeting (Add 1) were accepted.
4. POSITION OF THE UEMS SECTION/BOARD OF PATHOLOGY
Position of the UEMS Section/Boars of Pathology on
the following items and matters of importance were
discussed based on the memo (Add 2.1) and presentation
by Prof. Ruiter.
- Medical regulation
- Amendment of the rules of procedure
As basis for the discussion on Medical Regulation, the
draft of the UEMS policy paper "D 06yy draft 1" (Add
2.2) was presented. It was agreed that the policy paper
summarizes adequately the various levels of regulation
acting on medical profession. It was emphasized that
it is in the interest and also falls within the mandate
of the Section/Board that the regulatory functions
at the personal, team-based and workplace level are
appropriately established and their execution promoted.
In this regard, a note was also made of some recent
examples of incidents in which the current regulatory
practices had clearly failed. It was also brought up
that the Internet, as a new passageway of medical information,
poses new challengies and responsibilities for the
medical profession. Dr. Kirkham informed about the
plans in the UK to address the professional performane
concerns by a procedure based on a critical appraisal
by colleagues.
It was decided that a working group is formed with
a task to formulate a position paper of the Section/Board
concerning Medical Regulation as it reflects on pathology.
The members of the group are
- Kirkham (Chair)
- Kelly
- Sundström
The proposed Amendment to the Rules of Procedure (UEMS/03;
Add 2.3) was presented as a basis for the discussion
on how the proposed procedural changes will affect
the function and structure of the Section/Board. The
amendments concern the meeting of the Presidents and
Secretaries of the Sections and Boards. In the future
they will be held each year at the invitation of the
Executive Committee. It was agreed that the amendments
would have a positive effect in fostering closer connection
between the Sections/Boards and the Council.
There was a lively discussion on the recognition/representation
of specialties and the role of subsections within the
Section/Board. The status and positon of sub-sections
is mandated in Chapter VI.9 of the Rules as follows:
VI.9. Sub-Sections
A Section may, subject to the agreement of the
Council of UEMS, conditional on the majority of the
full Members, create one or more sub-sections, under
the responsibility of the main Section, devoted to
the study, promotion and defence of a branch of the
specialty or competence, which forms an integral
part of its practice, and involves a recognised higher
training program. The type of activity carried out
by this branch must be effectively performed, in
either exclusive practice or as a competence of the
main specialty, by trained specialists. However,
a field of practice which crosses the boundaries
of more than one specialty cannot compose a sub-section.
If there exists an European professional association
or, in default, an European learned society of the
related competence, the main Section may invite that
association to society to mandate two members. The
delegates thus appointed must have the approval of
the National Organisation representing their country
of origin within UEMS. They would be entitled, as
of right, to attend meetings of the parent Section,
an an advisory capacity
In the discussion, pros and cons of having sub-sections
vis-a-vis no sub-sections or separate sections were
presented. Professor Cruz-Sanchez informed about the
aims and activities of the European Confederation of
Neuropathological Societies (Euro-CNS).
It was affirmed with Dr. Thivolet dissenting that
neuropathology and cytopathology are recognized as
sub-sections within the Section/Board. It was decided
that two working groups are appointed to address the
position and role of cytopathology and neuropathology
as sub-sections within the Section/Board. The members
of the groups are:
Neuropathology
- Cruz-Sanchez (Chair)
- Patsouris
- Pardo
- Thivolet-Bejui
Cytopathology
- Cuvelier (Chair)
- Verhest
- Vass
- Barbatis
- Aardal
The task groups are to present their reports in the
next meeting of the Section/Board.
5. ONGOING MATTERS
The following topics were presented with the primary
aim of informing the delegates and the member countries,
and to formulate the Section/Board policies if deemed
appropriate:
- The Recognition of Professional Qualifications
- European Examination
- Dermatopathology examination
- Protocol concerning CME credit points
- Highlights from the UEMS Newsletter
5.1. The Recognition of Professional Qualifications
A new Directive of the European Parliament on the
recognition of professional qualifications (Directive
2005/36/EC; Add. 3) was distributed to the delegates
(available at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/qualifications/docs/eqf_en.pdf)
Prof. Ruiter reviewed the major aspects of the Directive.
Prof. Lehto brought into discussion the comments of
Dr. Hannu Halila, President of the UEMS. The major
topics emerging in the discussion was the length of
training in medical profession in general and in pathology
in particular. There were also views presented to the
effect that increasing specialization in medicine may
require, in the future, major reorganization of the
graduate and postgraduate training to maintain/reach
a balance between a trend of prolongation of the training
and with society's need to have professionals to serve
already at a young age and for a longer period of professional
life.
5.2. European Examination
Professor Cuvelier informed about the status, problems
and prospects of the European Examination. The major
problem is the low participation from the member countries.
The obvious reason for this is that the Examination
has no formal status and is not considered as a prerequisite
for qualification. Increasingly, the examination is
attended by colleagues from non-member states with
a motivation to present it as a credit when applying
a position in a member country. Professor Cuvelier
also strongly urged the delegates to work to have better
participation from their countries.
Professor Pardo informed about the EAPCP (European
Association of Pathology Chairs and Residency Program
Directors), a newly formed organization with the aim
of harnessing pathologists/teachers running the specialist
training programs to work for European harmonization.
Prof. Pardo told that there are some 280 heads of departments
in the member countries and that the EAPCP has just
opened a webpage (www.eapcp.org).
In the discussion, it was emphasized that it is important
to recognize and avoid overlap and conflicts in the
functions of the EAPCP and Section/Board. To that effect,
the members of the Section/Board who also serve in
the Council and the Committees of the EAPCP should
act strongly and in the spirit of developing close
collaboration and avoiding conflicts. In order to further
the links with the EAPCP it was decided that Professor
Ruiter writes a letter to the EAPCP in which these
policy lines are expressed.
Ms. Kempny raised a question whether the new developments
in pathology training would require revision of the
charter. In order to evaluate the current policies
of the Section/Board as to the training requirement
it was decided to form a working group with the following
members
- Cuvelier (Chair)
- Kirkham
- Thorborg
5.3. Dermatopathology Examination
In the previous Section/Board meeting in Helsinki
on May 21st, 2005, an agreement concerning dermatopathology
examination was accepted and Dr. Birgitte Bruun-Rasmussen
and Felix Offner elected as representatives of the
Section/Board in the European Advisory Board for Dermatopathology.
Dr. Birgitte Bruun-Rasmussen gave a report of the
first UEMS Dermatology/Pathology-ICDP Joint Meeting
held in Frankfurt Nov 12, 2005, about the examination
in 2004 and told about the guidelines and plans for
the examinations in 2006-2008.
5.4. Protocol concerning CME credit point
Prof. Lehto informed about the new agreement between
UEMS and the European Accreditation Council for CME
(EACCME) concerning the protocol to award European
credits for educational/training events. According
to the new protocol the evaluation of the event is
done by National Accreditation Authority and the relevant
Section of the UEMS. It was agreed that the President
of the Section of Pathology/Board of Pathology is in
charge of arranging the handling of the applications
submitted to the Section/Board and has the mandate
to decide about its acceptance and the number of credits.
For further information on the agreement, see http://admin.uems.net/uploadedfiles/711.doc.
6. EMERGING TOPICS
The following topics were discussed for the policy
formulation based on brief memoranda proposal by Professor
Lehto:
- New and future member countries; challenges and
opportunities (Add. 4)
- Ownership, storage and release of Pathology Results
(Add. 5)
In the discussion on the new and future member
countries, it was emphasized that it is instrumental,
first, to establish contacts with the relevant societies,
second, to inform them about the aims and functions
of the Section/Board, and, third, incorporate them
into the activities concerning the harmonization
efforts. The delegates were urged to use their own
contacts and channels to promote these efforts.
The topic on the ownership, storage and release
of pathology results was considered important
and it was agreed that unequivocal regulations need
to be put in place and that it is vital for the profession
of pathology that they will not either endanger the
diagnostic and the clinical use of the tissue material
or the data relevant to it or create unnecessary
obstacles for their use in research. It was agreed
that the topic is important and timely and will be
handled more extensively in future meetings.
7. LECTURE BY DR. PETER KELLY
Dr. Peter Kelly gave a talk on Quality Assessment
in Pathology. In the ensuing discussion, there was
a lively exchange of experiences of quite different
quality schemes protocols in different member countries.
On the other hand, it was agreed that the quality schemes
are central in setting the aims and determining the
contents of pathology training. Thus, they are not
only determinants but also instruments of harmonization.
Therefore, it was agreed that it is in the interest
of the Section/board to aim at more unified system
of quality assessment. For that purpose, it was decided
to found a working group with the following members:
- Kelly (Chair)
- Lehto
- Kempny
- Cuvelier
The working group was charged to present its proposition
for a unified quality control scheme which could be
used as a guideline in the quality scheme development
in the member countries by the next Section/Board meeting.
8. ELECTION OF SECRETARY AND PRESIDENT-ELECT
The topic was discussed based on Addendum 6. The procedure
presented in the Addendum was accepted. As secretary,
Prof. Lehto was proposed and unanimously elected.
9. FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION
Report from the year 2005, the status of the year
2006 (Add.7) and the new key for the fees was presented
by professor Ruiter (Add. 8).
10. THE NEXT MEETING
There were two proposals, Dublin and Ghent, for the
site of the next meeting. A vote was taken in favor
of Ghent. The data of the meeting was set at Saturday
the 2nd of June 2007.
11. CLOSE OF THE MEETING
Professor Ruiter closed the meeting at 4 p.m.
|