|
ADDENDUM 2
U E M S
SPECIALIST SECTION OF PATHOLOGY
EUROPEAN BOARD OF PATHOLOGY
MINUTES OF THE 23rd MEETING HELD IN GHENT IN BELGIUM ON JUNE 2,
2007
Date: Saturday, June 2, 2007, 9.00 am
Location: ‘Het Pand’, Onderbergen 1, Ghent,
Belgium
Host: Prof. Claude Cuvelier
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. OPENING, WELCOME AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Professor Cuvelier welcomed the delegates to Ghent.
Professor Dirk Ruiter gave his thanks to the hosts, opened the
session at 9.00 a.m. and welcomed the delegates.
Present: Claude Cuvelier (BE), Sven Seiverth (HR), Martin Tötsch
(DE), Efstratios Patsouris (GR), Calypso Barbatis (GR), Lazlo Vass
(HU), Carlo Capella (IT), René Scheiden (LU), Peter Furness
(UK), Nigel Kirkham (UK), Nesimi Buyukbabani (TR), Gamze Mocan
Kuzey (TR), Christer Sundström (SE), Javier Pardo (ES), Nina
Zidar (SI), Nils Petter Aardal (NO), Borghild Roald (NO), Piet
Slotweg (NL), Felix Cruz-Sanchez (EURO-CNS/ES), Bernard Maillet
(USMS), and Veli-Pekka Lehto (FI).
Apologies for absence: Gisela Kempny (DE), Peter Kelly (IE), Francoise
Thivolet-Bejui (FR), Cecilie Alfsen (NO), Etienne Marbaix (BE),
Denis Laedlein-Greilsammer (FR), Olli Carpén (FI), Trine
Thorborg (Junior Pathologists/DK), Carsten Rygaard (DK), Birgitte
Bruun Rasmussen (DK), Anna Kadar (HU), Arvydas Laurinavicius (LT).
2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was approved as circulated.
3. INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS AND DELEGATES
Prof. Ruiter introduced and welcomed Professor Piet Slootweg as
new Dutch delegate (replacing Professor van den Tweel) and Professor
Peter Furness as new UK delegate (replacing Professor James Underwood).
Prof. Ruiter thanked the outgoing delegates Dr. Peter Kelly (IE)
Dr. Robert Maurer (SW) for their excellent work for the Section/Board.
Dr. Gamze Mocan Kuzey informed about the reorganization of the
Turkish pathology societies and a formation of a new Federation
of National Pathology Associations. The Turkish delegates have
a status of representatives of the new Federation.
4. MINUTES OF THE ATHENS MEETING
The minutes of the 22nd meeting held in Athens were accepted as
presented (Add. 1).
5. REPORTS OF THE WORKING GROUPS
5.1. Subsection with emphasis on neuropathology/Cruz-Sanchez
Professor Cruz-Sanchez presented the outcome of the discussions
between the members of the working group (Cruz-Sanchez, Patsouris,
Pardo, Thivolet-Bejui. See Add. 2.
The role of Euro-CNS as central monitoring authority for neuropathology
at EU level was emphasized.
There was a lively discussion especially concerning the criteria
of a sub speciality/competence area forming a subsection. It was
noted that several aspects need to be taken into consideration,
such as economies, economies of scale, common trunk on training
versus specialized training, pressure from politicians concerning
the length of training and the policies of UEMS as an organization.
As a new organizational arrangement also a 'division' is an option.
During the discussion it became obvious that the training charter
of the Section/Board is outdated and is in dire need of revision.
On the other hand, the training charter is central in determining
the statuses of various subspecialties and competence areas and,
consequently, the optimal organizational form of the Section/Board.
It was concluded that final decisions have to be postponed until
an updated training charter has been worked out. 'Division' as
a new internal organizational form was generally welcomed as a
way to recognize the specificities of a subspecialty/competence
area without risking a loss of coherence of pathology as a unified
discipline.
5.2 Subsection with emphasis on cytology/Cuvelier
Professor Cuvelier presented the Memo (Add. 3) based on the discussions
between the members of the working group (Cuvalier Aardal, Barbatis,
Tötsch, Vass, Verhest, Viehl).
In the discussion the following aspects we covered: the role of
clinicians in cytological diagnostics, different training requirements
in different countries, different role of examinations in different
countries.
Also concerning cytopathology as a sub speciality, it was concluded
that its niche as well as its organizational form within pathology,
can only be evaluated appropriately against the backdrop of pathology
training charter at large. In regard to the insufficiencies of
the charter, as discussed above, it was agreed that further decisions
concerning the internal organizational form of the Section/Board
as to the role of cytopathology has to await rewriting and modernization
of the training charter of pathology as a speciality.
5.3. Training requirements/revision of the charter/Cuvelier
Professor Cuvelier presented the Memo (Add. 4) based on the discussions
between the members of the working group (Cuvalier, Kirkham, Thorborg).
There was a lively discussion on this topic based not only on
the memo presented by Professor Cuvelier but also on what presented
in Items 5.1. and 5.2 concerning the deficiencies and insufficiencies
of the present Charter.
The following points were addressed: The boundaries between specialities
and sub specialities a not fixed but in a dynamic state of change.
Charter should be a guide but also responsive to the changes, The
role of European examination has to be reconsidered, preferably
in collaboration with EAPCP. Quality issues are becoming ever more
important. Testing of competence is becoming more important than
recognition of fulfilling certain numerical requirements as to
the specimens signed out during training. New angles into the arrangement
of the training are core curriculum supplanted by training for
sub specialization and /or training program composed of modules
which enables a large variability according to the trainee's personal
desires and competences. There are several new documents prepared
by UEMS that have relevance and need to be taken into account in
the modernization of the training charter of pathology.
It was decided that a new working group is formed. Its task is
to revise Pathology Training Charter. Optionally, the working group
may take a form of a standing committee with a task to monitor
the development on the field of pathology with a task to present
revisions and changes to the Section/Board for approval. This would
guarantee continuous development of the Charter in response to
the changes in the society and in medicine as reflected upon pathology
as a diagnostic discipline.
The members of the working group are:
Cuvelier (Chair) Claude.Cuvelier@ugent.be
Capella carlo.capella@ospedale.varese.it
Kuzey gm_kuzey@yahoo.com
Seiwerth seiwerth@mef.hr
Roald borghild.roald@medisin.uio.no
Zidar nina.zidar@mf.uni-lj.si
Pardo jpardo@unav.es
Barbatis calbar@hol.gr
Patsuris epatsour@med.uoa.gr
Tötsch martin.toetsch@medizin.uni-essen.de
Cruz-Sanchez felixcruzsanchez@hotmail.com
Kirkham Nigel.Kirkham@nuth.nhs.uk
5.4 Quality assessment in pathology/Kelly
Dr. Kelly, on behalf of a working group (Kelly, Kempny, Cuvelier
and Lehto) had prepared a position paper entitled "External
Quality Assurance in Histopathology and a Pan-European Context".
The paper was presented by Professor Ruiter (Add. 5).
The paper was discussed especially in regard to pros and cons
as itemized in the position paper. Professor Furness told about
the situation in the UK and about the first UK quality schemes.
It was decided not to take any specific measures at this point.
However, it was considered important to discuss this matter further.
Professor Furness kindly agreed to give a presentation on the UK
quality scheme(s) in the next Section/Board meeting.
5.5. Medical regulation/Kirkham
Dr. Kirkham, on behalf of a working group (Kirkham, Kelly, Sundström),
had prepared a presentation concerning current aspects of medical
regulation in the UK (Add. 6).
In the discussion that followed, the situation in other European
countries was addressed. Based on a rapid survey, it was obvious
that the situation varies widely; some countries have regulatory
systems in place, some are experimenting and in some countries
there are no formal regulatory measures.
It was decided to keep abreast of the developments in this important
area and, for the time being, not to take any specific measures.
6. ONGOING MATTERS
6.1. European Examination; Memo/Cuvelier
Professor Cuvelier gave a presentation about the current situation
with the European Examination. The problems remain - a low participation
and the no-formal status of the examination. Prof. Cuvelier also
told about the details of the"Glasgow Declaration" which
is meant to be complementary to national regulations.
In the discussion, doubts were raised about the functionality
of the Glasgow Declaration due to the strictly guarded national
interests in mandating the graduation criteria. Several suggestions
were made to improve the situation of a Section/Board-driven examination:
1) Improving the visibility
- rewards/prizes or some other recognition for successful candidates
2) Incentives
- formally binding status
Despite the problems. it was unanimously agreed that the Section/Board should
go on with the development of the Examination. Preferably, this should take
place in collaboration with the EAPCP. Also support and new initiatives from
the UEMS were considered important.
6.2. Dermatopathology Examination; Memo/Bruun Rasmussen
Dr. Bruun Rasmussen's report on the recent Dermatopathology Examination
was read by Prof. Ruiter. The Examination has bee a success with
81 participants. In the meeting in Helsinki, an agreement concerning
a joint Examination in Dermatopathology negotiated between the
Section/Board of Pathology and the UEMS Section of Dermato-Venereology
was accepted. For the details of the arrangements and the rules,
see ANNEX 6.
6.3. CME credit points/EACCME; update/Lehto
Professor Lehto reported about the new credit point awarding
scheme of EACCME. Section/Board of Pathology receives approximately
ten applications per year for assessment and approval. The number
of applications is increasing. Subsection/Board receives a small
honorarium for the handling of the applications. In the discussion
it was considered important to urge the national societies to
be more active in submitting their applications for credit points
to EACCME.
6.4. EAPCP; update/Lehto
Due to a tight schedule, this item was left out.
6.5. New and future member countries; update/Lehto
Due to a tight schedule, this item was left out.
7. EMERGING TOPIC
7.1. Ownership, storage and release of pathology results
Due to a tight schedule, this item was left out.
7.2. E-learning in pathology
Due to a tight schedule, this item was left out
7.3. Cross-border health and telepathology
Due to a tight schedule, this item was left out.
8. EUROPEAN ISSUES- Secretary General of UEMS Dr. Maillet
Dr. Maillet, Secretary General of UEMS gave a presentation on
the Working time directive.
The topic was discussed especially concerning to what extent the
48-hour limit can be considered realistic and enforceable.
9. ELECTION OF PRESIDENT-ELECT
Professor Claude Cuvelier had kindly agreed to stand as candidate
for the position of President-Elect of the Section/Board of Pathology.
His candidacy was supported unanimously.
10. FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION
Professor Ruiter presented the report 2006 and status 2007
11. VARIA
Professor Lehto informed about the upcoming 50th Anniversary of
the UEMS.
12. NEXT MEETING
Dr. Peter Kelly kindly offered Dublin as the site of the next
meeting. This was welcomed and accepted conditional to outcome
of further discussions. Preliminary dates are May 24 and May 31.
13. CLOSE OF THE MEETING
Professor Ruiter thanked the delegates and closed the meeting
at 3 p.m.
|