OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine the perceived adequacy of residency training for current practice by Army family physicians; (2) to ascertain if differences exist by residency setting: medical center, medical activity, or civilian. METHODS: Surveys were mailed to the 334 family physicians in the Army in 1993. Training in various subject areas was rated as inadequate, adequate, or overly prepared. RESULTS: More than 75% of respondents felt prepared in 76% of general medical subjects (GM) but in only 39% of family medicine subjects (FM). There were no practice management subjects in which more than 75% felt adequately prepared. There were no differences in perceptions of GM or FM training between military- and civilian-trained respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Army and civilian residencies prepare family physicians for the medical aspects of practice. Early training in management subjects could be enhanced. Civilian and Army programs could improve training in family medicine subjects.
OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine the perceived adequacy of residency training for current practice by Army family physicians; (2) to ascertain if differences exist by residency setting: medical center, medical activity, or civilian. METHODS: Surveys were mailed to the 334 family physicians in the Army in 1993. Training in various subject areas was rated as inadequate, adequate, or overly prepared. RESULTS: More than 75% of respondents felt prepared in 76% of general medical subjects (GM) but in only 39% of family medicine subjects (FM). There were no practice management subjects in which more than 75% felt adequately prepared. There were no differences in perceptions of GM or FM training between military- and civilian-trained respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Army and civilian residencies prepare family physicians for the medical aspects of practice. Early training in management subjects could be enhanced. Civilian and Army programs could improve training in family medicine subjects.