Subject: Ed: OOTS EM - Professional Qualifications stream follow-up
From: "Liina Saar" <[email-masked]>
To: "TA Info" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 13:31:45 +0300

Tere

Palun registreerida ja panna mulle täitmiseks.

Aitäh!

Liina Saar

teenuse juht – tervishoiutöötajate registreerimine

ja kutsekvalifikatsiooni tunnustamine

tervishoiuteenuste osakond

+372 6509858

 <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]

Terviseamet

+372 794 3500

 <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]
 <http://www.terviseamet.ee/> www.terviseamet.ee

Paldiski mnt 81, 10614 Tallinn

Käesolev kiri on konfidentsiaalne ning mõeldud kasutamiseks kirja päises
nimetatud isikule/asutusele. Käesoleva kirja mistahes viisil kasutamine
või kopeerimine isiku poolt, kes ei ole märgitud selle adressaadiks, on
keelatud. Kui te olete saanud käesoleva kirja ekslikult, palume sellest
koheselt teavitada kirja saatjat ning kustutada saadud kiri koos kõikide
lisadega.

Saatja: Stamatia Dasiopoulou <[email-masked]>
Saatmisaeg: teisipäev, 15. oktoober 2024 11:48
Adressaat: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; Liina Saar
<[email-masked]>; Kaidy Teppe <[email-masked]>;
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Koopia: MC GRATH Nils (DIGIT-EXT) <[email-masked]>; Marina
Lanzuela Sanchez <[email-masked]>; Giuliano Sciurti
<[email-masked]>
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