OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a primary care internal medicine curriculum, the authors surveyed four years (1983-1986) of graduates of the primary care and traditional internal medicine residency programs at their institution concerning the graduates' preparation. DESIGN: Mailed survey of alumni of a residency training program. SETTING: Teaching hospital alumni. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: Of 91 alumni of an internal medicine training program for whom addresses had been found, 82 (90%) of the residents (20 primary care and 62 traditional) rated on a five-point Likert scale 82 items for both adequacy of preparation for practice and importance of training. These items were divided into five groups: traditional medical disciplines (e.g., cardiology), allied disciplines (e.g., orthopedics), areas related to medical practice (e.g., patient education), basic skills and knowledge (e.g., history and physical), and technical procedures. MAIN RESULTS: Primary care residents were more likely to see themselves as primary care physicians versus subspecialists (84% versus 45%). The primary care graduates felt significantly better prepared in the allied disciplines and in areas related to medical practice (p less than 0.01). There was no significant difference overall in perceptions of preparation in the traditional medical disciplines, basic skills and knowledge, and procedures. The same results were obtained when the authors looked only at graduates from the two programs who spent more than 50% of their time as primary care physicians versus subspecialists. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the perceived importance of these areas to current practice. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the primary care curriculum has prepared residents in areas particularly relevant to primary care practice. Additionally, these individuals feel as well prepared as do their colleagues in the traditional medical disciplines, basic skills and knowledge, and procedural skills.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a primary care internal medicine curriculum, the authors surveyed four years (1983-1986) of graduates of the primary care and traditional internal medicine residency programs at their institution concerning the graduates' preparation. DESIGN: Mailed survey of alumni of a residency training program. SETTING: Teaching hospital alumni. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: Of 91 alumni of an internal medicine training program for whom addresses had been found, 82 (90%) of the residents (20 primary care and 62 traditional) rated on a five-point Likert scale 82 items for both adequacy of preparation for practice and importance of training. These items were divided into five groups: traditional medical disciplines (e.g., cardiology), allied disciplines (e.g., orthopedics), areas related to medical practice (e.g., patient education), basic skills and knowledge (e.g., history and physical), and technical procedures. MAIN RESULTS: Primary care residents were more likely to see themselves as primary care physicians versus subspecialists (84% versus 45%). The primary care graduates felt significantly better prepared in the allied disciplines and in areas related to medical practice (p less than 0.01). There was no significant difference overall in perceptions of preparation in the traditional medical disciplines, basic skills and knowledge, and procedures. The same results were obtained when the authors looked only at graduates from the two programs who spent more than 50% of their time as primary care physicians versus subspecialists. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the perceived importance of these areas to current practice. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the primary care curriculum has prepared residents in areas particularly relevant to primary care practice. Additionally, these individuals feel as well prepared as do their colleagues in the traditional medical disciplines, basic skills and knowledge, and procedural skills.
Authors: R L Nelson; L A McCaffrey; F T Nobrega; H J Schultz; M E Campion; J M Naessens; P J Palumbo Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 1990-06 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Alexander R Disston; Gabriel J Martinez-Diaz; Sarath Raju; Maria Rosales; Wil C Berry; R Richard Coughlin Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 5.284