Jessica E van der Aa1, Annalisa Tancredi2, Angelique J Goverde3, Petr Velebil4, Jaroslav Feyereisl5, Chiara Benedetto6, Pim W Teunissen7, Fedde Scheele8. 1. Department of Research and Education, OLVG Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Athena Institute, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.vanderaa@olvg.nl. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sant'Anna Hospital, University of Torino, Italy. 3. Department of Reproductive Medicine and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands; European Board & College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Executive Committee, Brussels, Belgium; European Board & College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Standing Committee of Training and Assessment, Brussels, Belgium. 4. European Board & College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Standing Committee of Training and Assessment, Brussels, Belgium; Institute for the Care of Mother and Child, Prague, Czech Republic; Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. 5. European Board & College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Standing Committee of Training and Assessment, Brussels, Belgium; Institute for the Care of Mother and Child, Prague, Czech Republic; Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; European Board & College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Standing Committee on Training Recognition, Brussels, Belgium. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sant'Anna Hospital, University of Torino, Italy; European Board & College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Standing Committee of Training and Assessment, Brussels, Belgium; University Department of Surgical Science, University of Torino, Italy; European Board & College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Immediate Past-President, Brussels, Belgium. 7. Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, School of Health Professions Education (SHE), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 8. Department of Research and Education, OLVG Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Athena Institute, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; European Board & College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Standing Committee of Training and Assessment, Brussels, Belgium; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: European harmonisation of training standards in postgraduate medical education in Obstetrics and Gynaecology is needed because of the increasing mobility of medical specialists. Harmonisation of training will provide quality assurance of training and promote high quality care throughout Europe. Pan-European training standards should describe medical expertise outcomes that are required from the European gynaecologist. This paper reports on consensus development on the medical expertise outcomes of pan-European training in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. STUDY DESIGN: A Delphi procedure was performed amongst European gynaecologists and trainees in Obstetrics & Gynaecology, to develop consensus on outcomes of training. The consensus procedure consisted of two questionnaire rounds, followed by a consensus meeting. To ensure reasonability and feasibility for implementation of the training standards in Europe, implications of the outcomes were considered in a working group thereafter. We invited 142 gynaecologists and trainees in Obstetrics & Gynaecology for participation representing a wide range of European countries. They were selected through the European Board & College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and the European Network of Trainees in Obstetrics & Gynaecology. RESULTS: Sixty people participated in round 1 and 2 of the consensus procedure, 38 (63.3%) of whom were gynaecologists and 22 (36.7%) were trainees in Obstetrics & Gynaecology. Twenty-eight European countries were represented in this response. Round 3 of the consensus procedure was performed in a consensus meeting with six experts. Implications of the training outcomes were discussed in a working group meeting, to ensure reasonability and feasibility of the material for implementation in Europe. The entire consensus procedure resulted in a core content of training standards of 188 outcomes, categorised in ten topics. CONCLUSION: European consensus was developed regarding the medical expertise outcomes of pan-European training in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The outcomes will be described in core trainings standards, aimed at harmonising training in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Europe to promote high quality care.
OBJECTIVE: European harmonisation of training standards in postgraduate medical education in Obstetrics and Gynaecology is needed because of the increasing mobility of medical specialists. Harmonisation of training will provide quality assurance of training and promote high quality care throughout Europe. Pan-European training standards should describe medical expertise outcomes that are required from the European gynaecologist. This paper reports on consensus development on the medical expertise outcomes of pan-European training in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. STUDY DESIGN: A Delphi procedure was performed amongst European gynaecologists and trainees in Obstetrics & Gynaecology, to develop consensus on outcomes of training. The consensus procedure consisted of two questionnaire rounds, followed by a consensus meeting. To ensure reasonability and feasibility for implementation of the training standards in Europe, implications of the outcomes were considered in a working group thereafter. We invited 142 gynaecologists and trainees in Obstetrics & Gynaecology for participation representing a wide range of European countries. They were selected through the European Board & College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and the European Network of Trainees in Obstetrics & Gynaecology. RESULTS: Sixty people participated in round 1 and 2 of the consensus procedure, 38 (63.3%) of whom were gynaecologists and 22 (36.7%) were trainees in Obstetrics & Gynaecology. Twenty-eight European countries were represented in this response. Round 3 of the consensus procedure was performed in a consensus meeting with six experts. Implications of the training outcomes were discussed in a working group meeting, to ensure reasonability and feasibility of the material for implementation in Europe. The entire consensus procedure resulted in a core content of training standards of 188 outcomes, categorised in ten topics. CONCLUSION: European consensus was developed regarding the medical expertise outcomes of pan-European training in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The outcomes will be described in core trainings standards, aimed at harmonising training in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Europe to promote high quality care.