Healthcare Leadership and Management Development Institute


Nyelv választó

Hungarian (formal)English (United Kingdom)



Tudásalapú hálózatszervezet vagyunk, mely a 21.század egészségügy paradigmáját szimbolizálja.

HLMDI (angolból)

H – Boldogság és relatív jóléti állapot fenntartása. L – Tanulás, mely a legfontosabb mérhető tőkét adja a fejlődéshez

 M – Menedzsment és teljes körű vezetés a szinergia érdekében

 D – Fejlődés optimalizált és fenntartható módon

 I –Inspirált és inspiráló attitűd  


Hiszünk a tudatos gazdasági és egészségügyi rendszerben. Együtt élünk a jövővel, így valósítjuk meg azt. Hiszünk magunkban, mint a változás vezetőiben. Egyek vagyunk a globális egészségügyi rendszerrel.


Cím: Health Leaders Egyesület, Pécs, 7633, Építők útja 4/a. Mobilszám: (0036) 70 9462399


Segítjük a decentralizációs folyamatot a magyar egészségügyben, és felgyorsítani a válaszoló, hatásos, hatékony rendszer kialakulását.

  • Vízió

  • HLMDI (angolból)

  • Magunkról

  • Elérhetőség

  • Misszió


2017 június 17. (szombat) 21:06

Pillars of Integration College workshop on SDG 2030


From Mostafa Amir Sabbih

Financing SDG 2030 in Bangladesh


Mr. Mostafa Amir Sabbih, is a Development Economist by training and a Research Associate at the CPD, Bangladesh. He has completed his graduation and post-graduation in the area of Development Studies from the University of Dhaka, Bangladesh. He had previously carried out research for other international organizations like Oxfam and Mott MacDonald, before joining CPD. His areas of research interest at CPD include sustainable development, macroeconomic management, food security, climate change, education, health and poverty analysis. He participated as a delegate in the first International Student Energy Summit held in Norway. Recently, he had moderated a session in Asian regional dialogue titled “Starting Strong: The first 1000 days of the SDGs”, organised by ODI, Southern Voice and CEPA, held in Sri Lanka. He also participated in several national level training and capacity building workshops


Írta: Gombár Gabriella

2017 június 15. (csütörtök) 19:50

June 20 Integration Graduates discussing Hungary's MIPEX


Hlmdi-The first graduates of the migration -integration pilot project will be sharing the results of their learning through a professional round table on june 20th in pécs

The professional committee of the round-table will be hosting experts in the fields of migration and integration governance ,mediation and facilitation,psycho-sociology, epidemiology , economics and sustainable planning,innovation capacity building and empowerment,pharmacy,public health and global health

Reflections on Hungary's current and previous status on MIPEX provides an interesting center of attention for the professional discourse

Results of MIPEX and  Hungary related research 2015


Changes in context: can integration policies respond to the needs?

Nearly 20 million residents (or 4%) are non-EU citizens

The low-educated make up 37% of working-age non-EU immigrants in EU

Risk of poverty or social exclusion increased 4 points to 49%

Employment rates (aged 20-64) dropped 6 points on average in the EU to 56.5%

  1. Within the EU, nearly 20 million residents (or 4%) are non-EU citizens. The number of non-EU newcomers was relatively stable from 2008-2013, due to fewer labour migrants and more recognised beneficiaries of international protection)
  2. Since 2008 and crisis/austerity, non-EU citizens’ employment rates (aged 20-64) dropped 6 points on average in the EU to 56.5% in 2014 , while their risk of poverty or social exclusion increased 4 points to 49%, twice the level for EU citizens
  3. The low-educated make up 37% of working-age non-EU immigrants in EU (aged 18-64); a growing share are university-educated (around 1/4) , compared to 45% of immigrants in traditional countries
  4. Immigration should be a top item on the EU agenda, according to an increasing number of EU residents (24% in autumn 2014, up +16% since 2012, esp. BG, DK, DE, IT, MT, SE, UK), ranked just after the economy (33%), unemployment (29%) and public financing (25%)
  1. This agenda comes at a time of major government changes and close elections in several major destinations (e.g. between 2010-2014 in AU, BE, FR, GR, IT, PT, ES, UK, Nordics)
  2. Far-right parties have never done better in recent European history, threatened mainstream parties and even entered into government/kingmaker positions (unthinkable in 2000 with EU boycott threat of AT over FPÖ); e.g. 2014 European Parliament elections saw vote shares of ≈25% in DK, FR, UK, 20% in AT, 15% in FI, HU, LV, LT and NL and 10% in GR and SE
  3. Public opinion on immigration is divergent across the EU and generally uninformed. In 2012, 2/3 thought that immigrants should have equal rights, from 30-40% in CY, HU, LV to 80-90% in Nordics, NL, PT and ES . In 2014, non-EU immigration evoke ‘negative feelings’ in 57% EU residents, especially in Baltic, Central and Southeast Europe . While the public is grossly over-estimates the number of immigrants and correcting this improves their attitudes, few think that their public immigration debates are based on facts.

Policy indicators: Key Findings

Integration policies in the 38 MIPEX policies are, on average, ambivalent about equal rights and opportunities for immigrants. Scoring 52/100, integration policies in these developed democracies create slightly more obstacles than obstacles for immigrants to fully participate in economic, social and democratic life.

Immigrants generally face greater obstacles in emerging destination countries with small numbers of immigrants and high levels of anti-immigrant sentiment (the Baltics, JP, Central and Southeast Europe; EU13 average is 41/100). Immigrants usually benefit from more equal rights and opportunities in wealthier, older and larger countries of immigration, for example in Western Europe (EU15 average is 60/100) and traditional countries of immigration (67/100 on average for AU, CA, NZ, US). But political will may matter more than a country’s tradition of immigration, since more inclusive integration policies may both encourage more immigrants to settle permanently and the public to trust immigrants more.

For example, integration policies differ significantly between DE and AT/CH, DK and SE, BE and FR, PT and ES, JP and KR or between EE, LV and LT.

The greatest areas of strength are that migrant workers, reunited families and permanent residents enjoy basic security, rights and protection from discrimination. Within Europe, national policies are more strong and similar in these areas covered by EU law. The greatest obstacles are for foreign citizens to become citizens or politically active and for mainstream services to guarantee equal access and opportunities for immigrants (targeted employment, education and health support). In Europe, policies are generally weaker and divergent in these areas of national policy.

ScoreChange Since 2010*
1 Sweden 78 0
2 Portugal 75 1
3 New Zealand 70 0
4 Finland 69 2
4 Norway 69 1
6 Canada 68 1
7 Belgium 67 2
8 Australia 66 0
9 USA 63 1
10 Germany 61 3
11 Netherlands 60 8
11 Spain 60 0
13 Italy 59 1
ScoreChange Since 2010*
13 Denmark 59 10
15 Luxembourg 57 2
15 United Kingdom 57 6
17 France 54 1
18 South Korea 53 1
19 Ireland 52 1
20 Austria 50 3
21 Switzerland 49 1
22 Estonia 46 1
23 Hungary 45 1
23 Iceland 45
23 Czech Republic 45 3
23 Romania 45 1
ScoreChange Since 2010*
27 Slovenia 44 0
27 Greece 44 2
27 Japan 44 1
30 Croatia 43
31 Bulgaria 42 3
32 Poland 41 5
33 Malta 40 2
34 Slovakia 37 0
34 Lithuania 37 1
36 Cyprus 35 0
37 Latvia 31 2
38 Turkey 25 1

Policy indicators: changes

* +1 point on average, on the MIPEX 100-point-scale, between 2010-2014

  1. Integration policies continue to improve little-by-little, sometimes with great effects on specific aspects of people’s lives
  2. +1 point on average on the MIPEX 100-point-scale from 2010-2014 (similar to +1 point trend from 2007-2010)
  3. 13 countries made these +1 average improvements by reinforcing current programmes (PT, US), improving procedures (FR, IE, JP, CH, TU) or implementing EU law (HU, IT, LT, RO)
  4. 10 countries passed more major reforms (DK’s several reforms catching up with policies in Nordics, DE and international trends; more targeted support in AT and DE and dual nationality for 2nd generation in DE; CZ and PL adopt EU-required anti-discrimination laws and domestic citizenship reforms; BG implements EU law)
  1. 7 countries lost -1 point (or more for GR, NL, UK) due to restrictions and cuts: GR on citizenship and voting rights (-2); NO on national consultative body; AU, CA and KR on family reunion; major drops in only NL (-8) and UK (-6) in nearly all areas with residence restrictions and targeted support cuts)
  2. 6 countries receive the same score due to small improvements (SE) or restrictions (NZ, SI, ES) or none at all (CY, SK)
  3. Between 2007-2010, major reforms were passed in just a handful of countries (+11 in LU on all areas, +10 in GR on citizenship & voting rights, +5 in AT on targeted employment support, +4 in CZ on anti-discrimination, +3 in LV on access to education and training)

Beneficiaries: who could benefit from integration policies?


5-7% of non-EU citizen adults in the EU were not living with their spouse or partner


1/3 of working-age non-EU citizens were not in employment, education or training, especially women and the low-educated


Discrimination reported experienced by: 27% of people belonging to ethnic minorities 13% belonging to religious minorities

The need for ambitious integration policies is clear across European countries, according to the latest comparable data (mostly from 2013). 5-7% of non-EU citizen adults in the EU were not living with their spouse or partner in 2011/2 and thus may be potential sponsors for family reunion. On average, 1/3 of working-age non-EU citizens were not in employment, education or training, especially women and the low-educated.

Discrimination was reportedly experienced by 27% of people belonging to ethnic minorities and 13% belonging to religious minorities. While the public often talks about immigrants as newcomers, on average 3/4 of non-EU citizens were settled for 5+ years in most European countries, including Southern and Central Europe. More than half lived there long enough to apply for citizenship across the EU.

Beneficiaries: who really benefits?

The links between integration policies and outcomes are not always clear. Some countries actively improve their policies to respond to problems on the ground, while others ignore them. Some policies are reaching many eligible immigrants, while others are poorly implemented or limited to small-scale projects and best practices. The MIPEX review of statistics and evaluations (Bilgili 2015) suggest that ambitious policies are helping immigrants and their children in practice to reunite together, get basic training, become permanent residents, voters and citizens and use their rights as victims of discrimination. This can benefit everyone in society.
Researchers using MIPEX around the world find that the countries with inclusive integration policies also tend to be more developed, competitive and happier places for immigrants and everyone to live in.

Inclusive policies may also help us trust immigrants and see the benefits of immigration to our society, while restrictive policies harden distrust and xenophobic attitudes among the public. A drop in a country’s MIPEX score usually signals a rise in anti-immigrant attitudes and the success of far-right parties. The MIPEX network hopes to continue monitoring whether integration policies become more ambitious and effective, learning from the latest research and improving its indicators. We aim to bring a greater level of maturity and evidence to the often politicised debates about the successes and failures of integration policies around the world.

Írta: Gabriella Gombar

2017 június 14. (szerda) 18:10

EU díj: Dr.Jarjabka Ákos üzenete Szilárd István Professzornak


Tisztelt Professzor Úr!

Ezúton gratulálok a PTE Diaszpora Projekt Hálózat nevében, mint Hálózatunk tagjának az Ön által elnyert „Európai Polgár Dij” –hoz.


Jarjabka Ákos

PTE Diaszpóra Projekt vezetője

Rektori megbízott

Pécsi Tudományegyetem

Írta: Gabriella Gombar

2017 június 14. (szerda) 15:08

Integration College Pilot Prj at the Forefront


Integration College Pilot Project at the Forefront

HLMDI's Gabriella Gombár called together a tripatriate meeting between HLMDI, Department of Operational Medicine,Dept of Language and Culture of the  School of Medicine around the best methods for knowledge haring and collaborations around the integration platforms and programs designed , operated and hosted by the parties yesterday June 13th.

The enthusiastic participants agreed on expanding relationships at the levels  of training of the trainers (OFTEX CDP), Doctor-Patient Simulation, Research, Migrant Community Development Coaching and Facilitation , New program and Integration platform development

The Iranian and German communities represent the largest amongst the foreign students at the medical school requiring a special attention

During the meeting examples of the pilot Integration College and Platform  initiated by HLMDI and jointly researched by the Department of Operational Medicine were shared providing important impulses regarding the spectrum and content of the future areas of collaboration

Írta: Gabriella Gombár

2017 május 10. (szerda) 10:17

CRAIN's Cleveland Biz: Lay offs at Cleveland Clinic


Sodexo will lay off more than 380 workers at the Cleveland Clinic

Scott Suttel:

Food services contractors Sodexo plans to lay off more than 380 people who work at the main campus of the Cleveland Clinic. In a notice filed with the state of Ohio and Cuyahoga County, Gaithersburg, Md.-based Sodexo said it received notice from the Clinic on April 22 that "effective June 30, 2017, the client will no longer use Sodexo to perform Food and Nutrition services." The layoffs of 383 people are "expected to be permanent," and "Sodexo's operation at this account will be closed"


Írta: Gabriella Gombar


4 / 33 oldal


Powered by EvNix