Vastuskiri

(OOTS)(PQD)(FollowUpMeeting)(2024.10.15).pdf

Streamlined Requirements: Automatic Recognition

12

PQD reference

Requirement Status FI SE ES EE IT DE

Annex VII: 1(a) Proof of nationality OOTS x x x

Proof of citizenship OOTS x x x

Annex VII: 1(b) Proof of tertiary higher education (EQF 5-8) OOTS* x x x

Proof of initial vocational education & training (EQF 2-4) - x - -

Proof of tertiary vocation education & training (EQF 5-8) OOTS* x - -

Annex VII: 1(d) Proof of absence of suspension or prohibition of practice Draft x x x

Proof of absence of criminal record OOTS - x

Annex VII: 2 Proof of conformance to EU harmonised minimum training requirements

Draft x x x

Other Proof of change of name OOTS x - x

X

-

X

*

X*

Vs OOTS EM - Professional Qualifications stream follow-up.msg

Hello

The chart is attached to the e-mail.

* Regarding the education – we need the competent authority to issue information regarding the education that gives the applicant the right to get recognized according to the directive. We also give out this information to other competent authorities. We have no information on a person’s previous studies, following studies or further training. If the education has been acquired in the EU, EEA or Switzerland then we also do not ask for one’s grades, nor do we have this information.

Overall classification of the qualification such as summa cum laude is not needed and we do not have the information either.

* Proof of absence of criminal record – we only need the information regarding one’s rights to practice the profession and we also have the information if someone’s right to practice has been suspended by the court of law. If the suspension is in force then we will give this information out. If the suspension is not in force anymore and the professional has all the rights to practice again, then we will not give the information out.

Just a comment: in IMI competent authorities can also ask about disciplinary action taken against the applicant. Estonia does not have the information (if it does not result in the professional having their rights revoked for some time).

* Proof of change of name – we need the information, but not from other competent authorities, the applicant must issue proof of name change. We have the information regarding Estonian health care professionals in most cases, but since we are not the first source of this information, we do not generally give it out.

We do not have the information regarding one’s place of birth and we do not ask for it either.

* When it comes to acquired rights, we need confirmation that the qualification meets the requirements of Article 23.

Acquired rights are largely based on one’s work experience and we do not have this information. Therefore we have to ask the applicant to get a letter of proof from their employer and then Health Board will be able to provide the needed confirmations regarding article 23. However it should be taken into account that since the applicant must get a document from their employer first, replying to the inquiry might take time.

* Proof of professional qualification’s recognition in another member state – we do not have this information and we only ask for it if the education has originally been acquired outside the EU, EEA or Switzerland.

Regarding the general system: for Estonia this means mostly (although not only) professionals that do not have to be registered to have the right to practice (for example physiotherapists, care worker, chiropractor etc). If they are not registered then Health Board will not be the one to issue any information regarding them – this is then up to the Ministry of Education And Research.

Liina Saar

Service Manager – Recognition And Registration

Of Health Care Practitioners

Department of Health Care Services

+372 6509858

[email protected]

Republic of Estonia

Health Board

+372 794 3500

[email protected]

www.terviseamet.ee

Paldiski mnt 81, 10614 Tallinn

Estonia

This e-mail is confidential and meant for use by the person named in the letterhead. Any use in any way or copying of it by a person not marked as the addressee thereof is prohibited. If you have got this e-mail by mistake, please notify of it the sender without delay and delete the received e-mail together with all its attachments.

Saatja: Stamatia Dasiopoulou <[email protected]>
Saatmisaeg: teisipäev, 15. oktoober 2024 11:48
Adressaat: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Liina Saar <[email protected]>; Kaidy Teppe <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Koopia: MC GRATH Nils (DIGIT-EXT) <[email protected]>; Marina Lanzuela Sanchez <[email protected]>; Giuliano Sciurti <[email protected]>
Teema: OOTS EM - Professional Qualifications stream follow-up

Tähelepanu! Tegemist on väljastpoolt asutust saabunud kirjaga. Tundmatu saatja korral palume linke ja faile mitte avada.

Dear all,

Thank you again for all the time and effort put in the PQ workstream activities and your valuable inputs & insights.

Please find attached the slides from today's follow-up meeting for your review at your convenience.

As part of the immediate next steps (summarised also in slides 50 & 51), we'd appreciate your feedback via email on the following:

1. Have we missed any requirements that your authorities need in relation to the recognition of PQ of healthcare professionals? If yes, please indicate so following the template shown in slide 9. Please note that if such a missing requirement happens to overlap with an existing "gray area" requirement, we'd still need you to indicate your definition of it.

2. Regarding the minimum information of the listed requirements:

a. As Evidence Requesters: are there any redundant or missing data? I.e., data that you do not need but are listed or data that you do need but aren't currently listed.

b. As Evidence Providers: are there any data that you cannot provider? (If for some of these requirements you have already commented directly in the wiki you don't need to repeat the comment)

3. Are there any requirements for which further specialisation (i.e., replacing by more specific ones) or, conversely, merging (i.e., replacing by a broader one) is needed to more accurately capture the information needs of your authorities? If yes, please explicate the rationale (e.g., replace Req_X by the more specific ones Req_X1 and Req_X2 because of separation of concerns since in some cases only part of the evidence data are actually needed by the authorities; or replace Req_A and Req_B by a combined Req_AB because the authority doesn't need to distinguish between the two).

4. Any other comments on how to further improve the definitions of the requirements. E.g., revise a requirement name to be more concise or elaborate further a requirement description to enhance its understandability.

As always, please don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or for any additional comments and thoughts you'd like to share.

best,

Stamatia