LIBRO + ANEXOS NEUMOLOGÍA PEDIÁTRICA

Neumología Pediátrica. Anexos ❚ 57 European Curriculum Recommendations Task Force, with its rigorous validation and com- mitment in formulating the curricular content, sought to find a balance betweenmaking the cur- riculum both realistic, and, therefore, a balance of acceptability and applicability, while at the same time aspirational. The aspirational aspect relies on the fact that, with the processes undertaken, the final content of the curriculum recommenda- tions represent the highest standards of training in PRM (fig. 6). The transnational nature of the curriculum recommendations attempts to address the cur- rent trend of mobility among trainees and spe- cialists within Europe. Free access for European medical specialists to the European job market was possible via two relevant directives (issued in 1975 and 2005) by the European Union [11]. This has affected an automatic recognition of the diplomas and certificates of qualification in medicine in all member countries. However, this is only acceptable on the basis of harmonised training standards across the entire European Union. The vision remains that PRM training and standards, as defined by the Paediatric HERMES initiative, will deliver well-trained specialists who will secure the best care for children with respira- tory disease. Conclusion The European curriculum recommendations for training in paediatric respiratory medicine mark the next educational milestone in the Paediatric HERMES initiative. The third milestone is already being prepared by developing the voluntary Euro- pean examination in PRM with its inauguration in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, in 2011, corre- sponding to the assessment phase of the project. At the same time, the Task Force has started to discuss the future task of developing training net- works across Europe with accreditation activities. With all these educational milestones, the ini- tiative looks forward to realising all the concrete steps towards a European Training Concept for PRM with the homogenisation and standardisa- tion of training across Europe, quality control for all aspects of training, free movement of trainees across centres and nations, and the delivery of the very best care to children with respiratory diseases. Figure 6 Acceptability and applicability. References 1. Loddenkemper R, Haslam PL, Séverin T, et al . European curriculum recommendations for training in adult respira- tory medicine: 2 nd report of the HERMES Task Force. Breathe 2008; 5: 80–93. 2. Gappa M, Noël J-L, Severin T, et al. Paediatric HERMES: a European syllabus in paediatric respiratory medicine. Breathe 2009; 5; 237–241 3. Ratnapalan S, Hilliard RI. Needs assessment in postgraduate medical education: a review. Med Educ 2002; 7: 1–8. 4. Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs 2000; 32: 1008–1015. 5. Goodman CM. The Delphi technique: a critique. J Adv Nurs 1987; 12: 729–734. 6. Powell C. The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J Adv Nurs 2003; 41: 376–382. 7. Walker AM, Selfe J. The Delphi method: a useful tool for the allied health researcher. Br J Ther Rehabil 1996; 3: 677–681. 8. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), and American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). Toolbox of Assessment Methods© Version 1.1. http://www.acgme.org/outcome/assess/toolbox.asp Date last ac- cessed: May 13, 2010. Date last updated: 2000. 9. Godfrey S, Carlsen K-H, Landau LI. Development of pediatric pulmonology in the United Kingdom, Europe, and Australasia. Pediatr Res 2004; 55: 521–527. 10. European Respiratory Society. ERS Guide to Paediatric Training Centres. http://dev.ersnet.org/270-background. htm Date last accessed: May 13, 2010. 11. Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional qualifi- cations. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ :L:2005:255:0022:0142:en:PDF Date last accessed: May 13, 2010. Date last updated: September 7, 2005. Acknowledgements The following experts participated as national respondents: I. Azevedo (Portugal), I. Balfour-Lynn (UK), A. Barbato (Italy), M. Brezina (Slovakia),F. Buchvald (Denmark), I. Chkhaidze (Georgia), J-C. Dubus (France), A. Gimeno (Spain), G. Hedlin (Sweden), B. Karadag (Turkey), U. Krivec (Slovenia), A. Malfroot (Belgium), F. Riedel (Germany), A. Valiulis (Lithuania), M. Vasar (Estonia) and I. Volkov (Russia)