Total amount: € 0,00
Official Journal of the , , , ,
In association with
Indexed/Abstracted in: CINAHL, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,063
Online ISSN 1973-9095
Carlotte KIEKENS 1, Maximiliaan MOYAERT 1, Maria G. CERAVOLO 2, Sasa MOSLAVAC 3, Alvydas JUOCEVICIUS 4, Nicolas CHRISTODOULOU 5, Stefano NEGRINI 6,7
1 Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, University Hospitals, Leuven, Belgium; 2 Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Politecnica delle Marche University, Ancona, Italy; 3 Spinal Unit, Special Medical Rehabilitation Hospital, Varazdinske Toplice, Croatia; 4 Rehabilitation, Physical and Sport Medicine Center, Medical Faculty Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania; 5 European University Cyprus, Medical and Sciences Schools, Cyprus; 6 Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy; 7 IRCCS Fondazione Don Gnocchi, Milan, Italy
BACKGROUND: PRM is well established in Europe and officially recognised by the Union Européenne des Médecins Spécialistes (UEMS). The European PRM Board works to promote patient safety and quality of care through the development of the highest standards of medical training and healthcare across Europe as well as the harmonisation of PRM specialists’ qualifications. In its Action Plan for 2014-2018, the UEMS PRM Board has included the harmonisation of the PRM curriculum among the EU countries, as one of its main goals.
Based on a European Directive the Belgian Superior Council is envisaging a reform of the PRM curriculum.
AIM: To present the actual situation of education in PRM in Europe according to the survey proposed by the Belgium Task Force.
DESIGN: An online survey was posted on May 3rd 2015 to all delegates of the UEMS PRM Section and Board. Two questions were formulated. 1.What is the duration and curriculum of PRM training in your country? 2.Does a Postgraduate Rehabilitation training exist for other medical specialties?
RESULTS: The majority of the PRM training programmes in Europe have a duration ranging from 4 to 5 years, and are not aiming at downsizing the duration to the European minimal training period of 3 years. The vast majority (70%) of the responding countries don’t offer an additional accreditation of Rehabilitation for other medical specialties.
CONCLUSIONS: Comparing PRM training programmes in Europe can support the long expected reform of the PRM postgraduate curriculum in Belgium and gives perspective to agree on a transparent and comparable specialty training throughout Europe. Making a more comparable training promotes the establishment of PRM and its rehabilitation service provisions in the world.