Healthcare Professionals Crossing Borders Agreement

with Nekomentované

14 Conventions on Cross-Border Health Professionals (c) The relevant facts should be sufficient to enable the relevant host state authorities to make their own decisions on a case-by-case basis, within the framework of their own national regulatory laws and practices. Relevant facts should include at least the category of the problem, such as driving. B, criminal activity, etc., and punishment, but more detail is needed when differences between national legislation or regulatory practices result in a different outcome. (d) in the event of a total or partial restriction of the practice for health reasons, the decisions of a competent authority should not be called into question by another authority and no further questions should be asked. 5.2 Proactive exchange of proactive information is the competent authority that takes the initiative to transmit information without request to other relevant authorities. This becomes important for patient safety when people at risk attempt to evade regulatory procedures A difficult situation arises for the competent authorities when a member of the medical family has been restricted in his right to exercise because of serious behaviour, health or a criminal issue; and the competent authority has proof that that person can travel to another Member State in order to avoid any restrictions on his practice. This poses other difficulties when the competent authority has evidence that identity or document fraud has been used in the past or may be used in the future by the person concerned, either to avoid restrictions or to incorrectly register. In these serious cases, they will have evidence that the person is endangering patients or health systems. It can be argued that, in rare cases, the competent authorities are obliged to warn other competent authorities in other Member States against such persons. In exceptional cases, this amounts to an early warning system. The competent authority is then faced with a decision as to whether it should provide information on that person to all Member States (and/or third countries) or to Member States in which it has reason to believe that the person is most likely to travel with the relevant authorities, which appear to be different, if they request and record information about multiple registrations. However, with regard to free movement, there are 12 17 agreements relating to the agreement on border crossings in the health field five Some competent authorities of the Member States have the power to impose urgent and effective interim restrictions or to end the practice until the final and complete decision of a case. In these pending cases, where the balance is that patients or health systems are threatened, and in particular where a provisional or provisional sanction has been imposed pending a complaint or a final decision, the competent authorities should, on a case-by-case basis, exchange information reactively or proactively with other relevant authorities.

15 10 3. The main principles underlying the agreement 3.1 The agreement was developed in a spirit of mutual trust between the competent authorities and recognition that all aim to protect patients from professionals whose practice endangers patients. In the development of the first recommendations and the final agreement, the working group, and then the European Consensus Conference, agreed on a number of key principles and used them. It relates to: ensuring a high level of quality health care and patient safety and protection; facilitate professional mobility Ensure public confidence in and regulation of health professionals Avoid unnecessary bureaucracy accusing innocence until convicted, in all cases, of an investigation into professional practice or allegations of criminal activity; and fully comply with personal data protection legislation under Directives 4 and national legislation.