scholarly journals The balancing act: the variation among deaneries across Great Britain regarding provision of focus on diabetes and endocrinology training

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adnan Agha ◽  
Baldev Singh ◽  
Wasim Hanif
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
General Internal Medicine ◽  
Medical Specialty ◽  
Training Programme ◽  
Internal Medicine Training ◽  
Accreditation Training Programme ◽  
General Internal ◽  
Accreditation Programme ◽  
Training Programmes

Diabetes and endocrinology is a medical specialty, and a five-year dual accreditation training programme in diabetes and endocrinology and general internal medicine is offered, with active participation in medical on-call rota. Some deaneries offer some respite from the ever-increasing general medical workload by offering a few months of training focusing only on specialty work in diabetes and endocrinology. The authors wanted to see if this experience is available uniformly to all the trainees in diabetes and endocrinology/ general internal medicine across Great Britain. To assess this, a survey of specialist training registrars on a dual accreditation programme for diabetes and general internal medicine from all deaneries in England, Scotland and Wales was performed by directly interviewing and asking them about any relaxation in either their on-call or ward commitments to focus on diabetes and endocrine specialty during their five years of training. The results showed that the acute take/general medical commitment-free training periodfocusing only on diabetes and endocrinology ranges from zero in some deaneries to nearly three years in others. This simple survey highlights the extent of variability that exists in dual diabetes/endocrinology and general internal medicine training programmes across deaneries in England, Scotland and Wales, which may increase further once the training programme is reduced to four years after new changes from Shape of Training.

scholarly journals The balancing act: the variation among deaneries across Great Britain regarding provision of focus on diabetes and endocrinology training

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-24
Author(s):  
Adnan Agha ◽  
Baldev Singh ◽  
Wasim Hanif
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
General Internal Medicine ◽  
Medical Specialty ◽  
Training Programme ◽  
Internal Medicine Training ◽  
Accreditation Training Programme ◽  
General Internal ◽  
Accreditation Programme ◽  
Training Programmes

Diabetes and endocrinology is a medical specialty, and a five-year dual accreditation training programme in diabetes and endocrinology and general internal medicine is offered, with active participation in medical on-call rota. Some deaneries offer some respite from the ever-increasing general medical workload by offering a few months of training focusing only on specialty work in diabetes and endocrinology. The authors wanted to see if this experience is available uniformly to all the trainees in diabetes and endocrinology/ general internal medicine across Great Britain. To assess this, a survey of specialist training registrars on a dual accreditation programme for diabetes and general internal medicine from all deaneries in England, Scotland and Wales was performed by directly interviewing and asking them about any relaxation in either their on-call or ward commitments to focus on diabetes and endocrine specialty during their five years of training. The results showed that the acute take/general medical commitment-free training periodfocusing only on diabetes and endocrinology ranges from zero in some deaneries to nearly three years in others. This simple survey highlights the extent of variability that exists in dual diabetes/endocrinology and general internal medicine training programmes across deaneries in England, Scotland and Wales, which may increase further once the training programme is reduced to four years after new changes from Shape of Training.

scholarly journals General Internal Medicine Subspecialty Training Update

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon E. Card MD MSc
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Training Program ◽  
General Internal Medicine ◽  
Royal College ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Subspecialty Training ◽  
Internal Medicine Training ◽  
General Internal

The vast majority of general internal medicine (GIM) programs in Canada have become distinct entities that provide training in additional competencies and leadership above and beyond those required for the specialty of internal medicine. In December 2010, after many years of effort, GIM finally achieved recognition as a distinct subspecialty by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. A GIM Working Group has finalized the objectives and requirements for a 2-year subspecialty training program in GIM that will follow after the existing 3-year core internal medicine training program. These documents have now been approved by the Royal College.

scholarly journals UK-wide study of the opinions of gastroenterology trainees: COVID-19, Shape of Training and the future workforce

2021 ◽  
pp. flgastro-2021-101965
Author(s):  
Suneil A Raju ◽  
Rebecca Harris ◽  
Charlotte Cook ◽  
Philip Harvey ◽  
Elizabeth Ratcliffe
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
General Internal Medicine ◽  
Training Programme ◽  
British Society ◽  
Specialty Training ◽  
Endoscopy Training ◽  
Electronic Survey ◽  
General Internal ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Training Opportunities

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted training. Gastroenterology higher specialty training is soon to be reduced from 5 years to 4. The British Society of Gastroenterology Trainees Section biennial survey aims to delineate the impact of COVID-19 on training and the opinions on changes to training.MethodsAn electronic survey allowing for anonymised responses at the point of completion was distributed to all gastroenterology trainees from September to November 2020.ResultsDuring the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, 71.0% of the respondents stated that more than 50% of their clinical time was mostly within general internal medicine. Trainees reported a significant impact on all aspects of their gastroenterology training due to lost training opportunities and increasing service commitments. During the first wave, 88.5% of the respondents reported no access to endoscopy training lists. Since this time, 66.2% of the respondents stated that their endoscopy training lists had restarted. This has resulted in fewer respondents achieving endoscopy accreditation. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused 42.2% of the respondents to consider extending their training to obtain the skills required to complete training. Furthermore, 10.0% of the respondents reported concerns of a delay to completion of training. The majority of respondents (84.2%) reported that they would not feel ready to be a consultant after 4 years of training.ConclusionsReductions in all aspects of gastroenterology training were reported. This is mirrored in anticipated concerns about completion of training in a shorter training programme as proposed in the new curriculum. Work is now required to ensure training is restored following the pandemic.

Unified general internal medicine training programs

1990 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 166-169
Author(s):  
Arthur M. Fournier ◽  
Mark Gelbard ◽  
Laurence B. Gardner
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
General Internal Medicine ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
Internal Medicine Training ◽  
General Internal

Letter to the editor: Acute Medicine Journal

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-56
Author(s):  
Adam Williamson ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Training Programme ◽  
Point Of Care Ultrasound ◽  
Internal Medicine Training ◽  
Acute Medicine ◽  
Front Door ◽  
Medicine Journal ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Training Programmes

Editor- I note with interest that the Joint Royal College of Physicians Training Board curriculum for Acute Internal Medicine (AIM) has been reviewed and circulated for comment and consideration of implementation in August 2022. The proposed curriculum hopes to produce doctors with generic professional and specialty specific capabilities needed to manage patients presenting with a wide range of medical symptoms and conditions. It aims to produce a workforce that reflects the current trends of increasing patient attendances to bothprimary care and emergency departments- one that has a high level of diagnostic reasoning, the ability to manage uncertainty, deal with comorbidities and recognise when specialty input is require in a variety of settings, including ambulatory and critical care. The new curriculum moves away from each trainee being required to develop a specialist skill, such as medical education, echocardiography or endoscopy throughout their training1, to trainees acquiring competencies in a specialist theme for their final 24 to 30 months of their training programme after they have completed their Point of Care Ultrasound certification. The current curriculum allows trainees to have regular dedicated time to develop interests inside or outside acute medicine to supplement their professional experience and training. This often allows trainees time away from the ‘front door’, can be welcomed break from high intensity acute care and uniquely offers trainee physicians flexibility in their training programmes and curriculum requirements. This sets acute medicine training apart from other physician training programmes and can attract trainees to apply to the specialty. It also addresses Shape of Training recommendations, which suggest more flexibility and choice in career structure for postgraduate doctors.2 Point of Care Ultrasound will undoubtedly be a welcome addition to the curriculum and will benefit patients, trainees and front door services up and down the country.3 However, concerns regarding supervision and maintenance of competency exist.4 More importantly, time spent gaining competency in this before pursuing an interest in an additional area or procedure will offer trainees less time to attain accreditation in some of the existing specialist skills currently available. With ongoing concerns regarding recruitment and retention in Acute Internal Medicine5 we should be careful that we do not lose a unique selling point that acute internal medicine training offers.

Differences and similarities in rheumatology specialty training programmes across European countries

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (6) ◽  
pp. 1183-1187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisca Sivera ◽  
Sofia Ramiro ◽  
Nada Cikes ◽  
Maxime Dougados ◽  
Laure Gossec ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
National Curriculum ◽  
Training Programme ◽  
Steering Committee ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Specialty Training ◽  
Internal Medicine Training ◽  
General Internal ◽  
European League Against Rheumatism ◽  
Training Programmes

ObjectivesTo analyse the similarities and discrepancies between the official rheumatology specialty training programmes across Europe.MethodsA steering committee defined the main aspects of training to be assessed. In 2013, the rheumatology official training programmes were reviewed for each of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) countries and two local physicians independently extracted data on the structure of training, included competencies and assessments performed. Analyses were descriptive.Results41 of the 45 EULAR countries currently provide specialist training in rheumatology; in the remaining four rheumatologists are trained abroad. 36 (88%) had a single national curriculum, one country had two national curricula and four had only local or university-specific curricula. The mean length of training programmes in rheumatology was 45 (SD 19) months, ranging between 3 and 72 months. General internal medicine training was mandatory in 40 (98%) countries, and was performed prior to and/or during the rheumatology training programme (mean length: 33 (19) months). 33 (80%) countries had a formal final examination.ConclusionsMost European countries provide training in rheumatology, but the length, structure, contents and assessments of these training programmes are quite heterogeneous. In order to promote excellence in standards of care and to support physicians’ mobility, a certain degree of harmonisation should be encouraged.

scholarly journals Why I Wrote the New Royal College General Internal Medicine Exam: Redefining Our Identity and Revalidation

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadine Abdullah, MD, Med, FRCPC
Keyword(s):  
Internal Medicine ◽  
Professional Identity ◽  
General Internal Medicine ◽  
Royal College ◽  
General Internist ◽  
Successful Completion ◽  
Internal Medicine Training ◽  
Certification Exams ◽  
General Internal

In 2010, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) recognized General Internal Medicine (GIM) as a distinct subspecialty. Soon after this recognition came a new written certificationexam, the successful completion of which awards the applicant the title of General Internist. For those of us who trained prior to the new status and examination, GIM was the default designation after four years of internal medicine training if a subspecialty was not pursued.What does this new subspecialty status mean for our professional identity, qualifications, and public credibility? Twelve years aftermy successful completion of the Internal Medicine (IM) certification exams, I voluntarily applied for consideration to write the first RCPSC exam in GIM, without a clear reason why. My reflection on the days leading up to the exam and writing the exam itself led me to understand why I did it. The process addressed my skepticism around designating GIM as a unique subspecialty, and through this I have come to appreciate the need for our profession to embrace revalidation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document