Europe JOURNAL OF THE IRISH DENTAL ASSOCIATION
CED speaks out on Qualifications Directive DR TOM FEENEY discusses the Professional Qualifications Directive and the CED’s position on the modernisation of this important document.
The Professional Qualifications Directive (PQD) is a set of rules, consolidated in a single Directive (Directive 2005/36/EC), which establishes mutual recognition of qualifications across EU states. A legislative proposal to modernise the PQD is scheduled for 2012. As part of its review of the workings of the PQD to date, the European Commission organised a workshop on minimum training requirements for the professions of dental practitioner and doctor on May 6, 2011, in Brussels. This workshop was attended by national experts appointed by the Ministries of the Member States. In this workshop, the Commission invited the experts to comment on: n how compliance with the minimum training requirements of Directive 2005/36/EC on the Recognition of Professional Qualifications by the training institutions is ensured in their Member State; n how the transparency of the training programmes could be enhanced; n possible modifications of the minimum training requirements, on the basis of a specific set of questions for each sectoral profession; and, n whether and how possible modifications of the Bologna process could contribute to possible changes to the minimum training requirements. For this reason, the CED Working Group Education and Professional Qualifications asked CED members to share with their national experts the CED’s positions on minimum training requirements. These positions were drawn from the CED Resolutions adopted in May 2010 in Santiago de Compostela and from the CED response to the consultation paper on the PQD, and included the following: 1. The CED believes that basic dental training should continue to comprise a total of five years of full-time theoretical and practical study, as currently established under Directive 2005/36/EC. 2. The CED calls for the unity of the dental training cycle to be maintained, and strongly opposes the implementation of the twocycle structure (Bachelor/Master) for the dental profession under Directive 2005/36/EC. 3. The CED strongly recommends the addition of a minimum number of training hours – at least 5,000 hours – under the first subparagraph of Article 34 paragraph 2 of Directive 2005/36/EC, to avoid the proliferation of weekend diplomas by private universities. The first subparagraph of Article 34 paragraph 2 should therefore be amended as follows: “Basic dental training shall comprise a total of at least five years and 5,000 hours of fullJune/July 2011 140 : VOLUME 57 (3)
time theoretical and practical study, comprising at least the programme described in Annex V, point 5.3.1 and given in a university, in a higher institute providing training recognised as being of an equivalent level or under the supervision of a university”. This new criterion, already applied for medical practitioners, should be implemented in a flexible manner by the Member States and by the universities. 4. In line with the new trends of measuring competences and studying final outcomes in the profession, the CED strongly recommends the inclusion of a minimum list of competences, which a dentist should have acquired by the end of his dental education, in a new Annex of Directive 2005/36/EC. Since Annex V.3/5.3.1 of Directive 2005/36/EC is very old (it dates from 1978), the CED strongly recommends its revision based on three types of changes, which reflect scientific and technical progress in dentistry. First, changes concerning the names of the subjects; second, deletion of certain subjects to the study programme for dental practitioners; and third, addition of other subjects. 5. For the sake of clarity and to correct the unequal treatment of dentistry compared to medicine, the CED strongly requests the introduction of the word “dental” in the second sentence of recital 20 of Directive 2005/36/EC. This would avoid different interpretations regarding the automatic recognition of dental specialties after the date of entry into force of Directive 2005/36/EC. Furthermore, the CED believes that the introduction of this word would facilitate the mobility of dental practitioners between Member States (as specialties would be recognised more easily), and that patients would be better informed about the legitimate qualifications of dental practitioners. 6. The CED points out that knowledge of the host Member State’s language(s) is necessary and justified for reasons of patient safety (Article 53 of Directive 2005/36/EC). Healthcare professionals should be able to communicate with their patients in a proper way (to obtain informed consent, to inform them about the procedure and the risks, to explain treatment options, etc.) and understand fully the information given by the patient. Misinterpretation in healthcare can lead to fatal errors. Furthermore, as the vast majority of dental practitioners are selfemployed, the control by employers of linguistic knowledge practically does not exist. The documents required under point 16 – “Linguistic knowledge” – as acceptable practice should become enforceable and incorporated in Article 53 of Directive 2005/36/EC.