- Email: [email protected]
Introduction to the European Board of Vascular Surgery
International Congress Series 1272 (2004) 38 – 40
www.ics-elsevier.com
Introduction to the European Board of Vascular Surgery John H.N. Wolfe * Consultant Vascular Surgeon, St Mary’s Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK
Within the UEMS, we have opted to divide the responsibilities for vascular surgery between the Division and the Board. Broadly speaking, the President of the Division, with the support of the Council, looks outward towards cooperation with other specialists (most recently, in particular, with the angiologists) and the relationship with central committees that affect the delivery of vascular services around Europe. Note, for example, our successful lobbying regarding Directive COM (2002) 119. Alterations to the text allow vascular specialists to be recognised among different European countries. The Division also looks towards the Section of Surgery and our relationship with other surgical specialties. We strongly believe that this should be on an equal footing and that all surgical specialties should form a federation, but that each surgical specialty should have a section of its own. Conversely, the Board looks inwards to the orchestration and delivery of vascular education within our specialty. It is most important in the complex relationship between national societies, European societies, the European Board of Vascular Surgery and other European boards that we all recognise our own particular roles and fulfil these obligations whilst not attempting to embark upon commitments that are beyond our remit. European organisations have a clear responsibility to provide a service for the European Community and cannot, and should not, attempt to impose upon national organisations within each country. These activities are focussed on their own vascular surgeons and provided for by national societies. European bodies have no role in these activities, but should a national group wish to encourage the involvement of other Europeans it can call upon the support of the European Board. The European vascular societies have the responsibility for encouraging and providing education in the form of annual meetings, symposia and workshops. This is clearly not the remit of the European Board of Surgery, whose role is to judge and encourage these activities through its role as an accreditor of CME. Societies and organisers provide CME, the European Board accredits CME. As the Board, we have recognised this responsibility and have transparent and clear principles relating to CME activity so that our methods of
* Tel.: +44-207-886-6666; fax: +44-207-631-5341. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.H.N. Wolfe). 0531-5131/ D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ics.2004.04.077
J.H.N. Wolfe / International Congress Series 1272 (2004) 38–40
39
accreditation are accepted and respected [1]. Johan van Bockel, as the current Chairman of the CME Committee, deals with this in more detail in chapter X, but suffice it to say that that we now have clear and transparent guidelines on CME accreditation for meetings and symposia, workshops and, most recently, on the important relationship with industry [2]. We hope that this CME activity provides a template for all European societies and universities within which to provide educational opportunities that are recognised throughout Europe. The European Board is also proud of the progress it has made with the European Vascular Exam (EBSQ-Vasc); now those who pass it are Fellows of the European Board of Vascular Surgery (FEBVS). This exam is reported in greater detail by David Bergqvist, Chairman of the Examiners, in chapter Y. The exam was started in 1996 and is now developing into an exam that will be of value to most Europeans. It is the first modern exam to introduce a technical skills exercise into a surgical exam [3]. With the cooperation of the various nation states of Europe, this could be a unifying process that provides a standard of vascular training to which all countries can aspire. The strength of Europe is its cultural diversity and variations in approach to surgery. This rich variety of inspiration and abilities need not be homogenised into a grey mass, and I hope that variations in training, surgical approach and priorities will continue to be a source of amicable discussion between the various countries. This diversity of talent enriches us all. Nevertheless, the provision of an exam available to all vascular surgeons who are European citizens allows equal opportunity and a qualification that will, we hope, be respected throughout Europe. The provision of CCST and admission to the Surgical Specialist Register as a vascular surgeon remains the responsibility of each nation. I stress that a European qualification cannot, and does not, wish to bypass national accreditation but, as a respected qualification, may be used by the countries as part of the accreditation process. As a service to the medical associations of these countries, we hope that we can provide a fair and respected qualification, which is available to all. In order to sit this exam, the trainee must perform a minimum number of vascular operations and meet other criteria. In order to facilitate the documentation of these operations, the European Board has also suggested a logbook that allows easy documentation of experience for the trainee (this is discussed in more detail by Domenico Palombo in chapter Z). We also hope that by documenting experience the trainee will be empowered to discuss his/her training needs with his/her trainers. It is quite clear that the level of experience obtained in different programmes in Europe is almost infinitely variable. We have also started the documentation of vascular centres in various countries and educational facilities and clinical experience available in these vascular centres. In Germany, this process is well developed and their experience is useful to us all. In the future, these vascular centres may be accredited for the vascular training they provide, but we are currently at a very early stage of this process. All activities of the Board should be seen to encourage education and training and also to support innovative initiatives. To designate units as vascular centres without careful consideration of the consequences could become divisive and counterproductive, but in due course, when carefully considered criteria have been developed, this system should allow the free flow of both trainees and mature surgeons between different European units and thus further enrich our specialty.
40
J.H.N. Wolfe / International Congress Series 1272 (2004) 38–40
1. Conclusion The European Board is a young and vital body that has already developed a transparent and effective CME process that is utilised by European vascular meetings. The Exam has also proved a success and we hope that this will be used as a benchmark by young surgeons throughout Europe. These initiatives must not ossify, but grow and develop with an exciting and fast changing specialty. References [1] J.H.N. Wolfe, European CME (editorial), Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 18 (1999) 277 – 279. [2] J.H. van Bockel, et al., Guidelines for CME Activities Accredited by the EBVS, Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. (2004) (in press). [3] V.A. Pandey, et al., on Behalf of the European Board of Vascular Surgery, Validity of an exam assessment in surgical skill: EBSQ-VASC pilot study (ESVS 2003 Winning Article), Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 27 (4) (2004) 341 – 348.
www.ics-elsevier.com
Introduction to the European Board of Vascular Surgery John H.N. Wolfe * Consultant Vascular Surgeon, St Mary’s Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK
Within the UEMS, we have opted to divide the responsibilities for vascular surgery between the Division and the Board. Broadly speaking, the President of the Division, with the support of the Council, looks outward towards cooperation with other specialists (most recently, in particular, with the angiologists) and the relationship with central committees that affect the delivery of vascular services around Europe. Note, for example, our successful lobbying regarding Directive COM (2002) 119. Alterations to the text allow vascular specialists to be recognised among different European countries. The Division also looks towards the Section of Surgery and our relationship with other surgical specialties. We strongly believe that this should be on an equal footing and that all surgical specialties should form a federation, but that each surgical specialty should have a section of its own. Conversely, the Board looks inwards to the orchestration and delivery of vascular education within our specialty. It is most important in the complex relationship between national societies, European societies, the European Board of Vascular Surgery and other European boards that we all recognise our own particular roles and fulfil these obligations whilst not attempting to embark upon commitments that are beyond our remit. European organisations have a clear responsibility to provide a service for the European Community and cannot, and should not, attempt to impose upon national organisations within each country. These activities are focussed on their own vascular surgeons and provided for by national societies. European bodies have no role in these activities, but should a national group wish to encourage the involvement of other Europeans it can call upon the support of the European Board. The European vascular societies have the responsibility for encouraging and providing education in the form of annual meetings, symposia and workshops. This is clearly not the remit of the European Board of Surgery, whose role is to judge and encourage these activities through its role as an accreditor of CME. Societies and organisers provide CME, the European Board accredits CME. As the Board, we have recognised this responsibility and have transparent and clear principles relating to CME activity so that our methods of
* Tel.: +44-207-886-6666; fax: +44-207-631-5341. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.H.N. Wolfe). 0531-5131/ D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ics.2004.04.077
J.H.N. Wolfe / International Congress Series 1272 (2004) 38–40
39
accreditation are accepted and respected [1]. Johan van Bockel, as the current Chairman of the CME Committee, deals with this in more detail in chapter X, but suffice it to say that that we now have clear and transparent guidelines on CME accreditation for meetings and symposia, workshops and, most recently, on the important relationship with industry [2]. We hope that this CME activity provides a template for all European societies and universities within which to provide educational opportunities that are recognised throughout Europe. The European Board is also proud of the progress it has made with the European Vascular Exam (EBSQ-Vasc); now those who pass it are Fellows of the European Board of Vascular Surgery (FEBVS). This exam is reported in greater detail by David Bergqvist, Chairman of the Examiners, in chapter Y. The exam was started in 1996 and is now developing into an exam that will be of value to most Europeans. It is the first modern exam to introduce a technical skills exercise into a surgical exam [3]. With the cooperation of the various nation states of Europe, this could be a unifying process that provides a standard of vascular training to which all countries can aspire. The strength of Europe is its cultural diversity and variations in approach to surgery. This rich variety of inspiration and abilities need not be homogenised into a grey mass, and I hope that variations in training, surgical approach and priorities will continue to be a source of amicable discussion between the various countries. This diversity of talent enriches us all. Nevertheless, the provision of an exam available to all vascular surgeons who are European citizens allows equal opportunity and a qualification that will, we hope, be respected throughout Europe. The provision of CCST and admission to the Surgical Specialist Register as a vascular surgeon remains the responsibility of each nation. I stress that a European qualification cannot, and does not, wish to bypass national accreditation but, as a respected qualification, may be used by the countries as part of the accreditation process. As a service to the medical associations of these countries, we hope that we can provide a fair and respected qualification, which is available to all. In order to sit this exam, the trainee must perform a minimum number of vascular operations and meet other criteria. In order to facilitate the documentation of these operations, the European Board has also suggested a logbook that allows easy documentation of experience for the trainee (this is discussed in more detail by Domenico Palombo in chapter Z). We also hope that by documenting experience the trainee will be empowered to discuss his/her training needs with his/her trainers. It is quite clear that the level of experience obtained in different programmes in Europe is almost infinitely variable. We have also started the documentation of vascular centres in various countries and educational facilities and clinical experience available in these vascular centres. In Germany, this process is well developed and their experience is useful to us all. In the future, these vascular centres may be accredited for the vascular training they provide, but we are currently at a very early stage of this process. All activities of the Board should be seen to encourage education and training and also to support innovative initiatives. To designate units as vascular centres without careful consideration of the consequences could become divisive and counterproductive, but in due course, when carefully considered criteria have been developed, this system should allow the free flow of both trainees and mature surgeons between different European units and thus further enrich our specialty.
40
J.H.N. Wolfe / International Congress Series 1272 (2004) 38–40
1. Conclusion The European Board is a young and vital body that has already developed a transparent and effective CME process that is utilised by European vascular meetings. The Exam has also proved a success and we hope that this will be used as a benchmark by young surgeons throughout Europe. These initiatives must not ossify, but grow and develop with an exciting and fast changing specialty. References [1] J.H.N. Wolfe, European CME (editorial), Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 18 (1999) 277 – 279. [2] J.H. van Bockel, et al., Guidelines for CME Activities Accredited by the EBVS, Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. (2004) (in press). [3] V.A. Pandey, et al., on Behalf of the European Board of Vascular Surgery, Validity of an exam assessment in surgical skill: EBSQ-VASC pilot study (ESVS 2003 Winning Article), Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 27 (4) (2004) 341 – 348.