Resident Training and Education in the United States

PEDIATRICS ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 112 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 752-754
Author(s):  
Renee R. Jenkins

The Issue. Critical institutional and organization issues affect the education of pediatricians, influence their knowledge about child health disparities, and shape their attitudes and approaches to community pediatrics. Understanding the US graduate and postgraduate medical education system is necessary if critical and sustainable changes are to be made to ensure the capacity of pediatricians to respond to critical contemporary determinants of child health.

Author(s):  
Chong Chia Yin, MBBS, MMed, MRCP, FRCPCH ◽  
Serene Ai Kiang Ong, MSc ◽  
Yeo Ai Ling ◽  
Chay Oh Moh, MBBS, Mmed (Paed), FAMS, FRCPCH

In 2009, Singapore began replacing the British-based specialist training that constituted its postgraduate medical education with a United States-based Residency program, which is more structured. Singapore is the first country outside the United States to be accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education — International (ACGME-I). This paper reviews the recent changes in the context of the Pediatrics program at the KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital, one of the five specialties chosen to launch the new residency programs. Most of the changes were made for accreditation purposes, so as to align with the requirements set by ACGME-I; however, local content and Ministry of Health (MOH) stipulations were also taken into account when designing the new pedagogical and training curriculum. Areas discussed include faculty numbers and development, concurrent training of trainees from the previous system, selection of residents, resident training, resident duty hours, mentors, curriculum, rotations, continuity clinics, scholarly activity, postgraduate exams, remediation, and chief residents.


1999 ◽  
Vol 33 (7) ◽  
pp. 493-498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josephine M Cassie ◽  
Judith S Armbruster ◽  
M Ian Bowmer ◽  
David C Leach

1989 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1577-1582 ◽  
Author(s):  
James D. Cox ◽  
Daniel F. Flynn ◽  
Donna D. Pittman ◽  
Luther W. Brady ◽  
Juan A. Del Regato

Author(s):  
Wendy E. Parmet

This chapter studies the social determinants of health in the United States, focusing on one important but often overlooked social determinant: law. It explains how law influences social determinants and why law should itself be viewed as an important social determinant, one that can both magnify or diminish health disparities. Law can affect population health in numerous ways. Most obviously, laws create, empower, and restrain state, local, and federal public health agencies; regulate the delivery of healthcare; and seek to promote population health by regulating unsafe practices and activities, such as smoking. Health laws, however, are not the only laws that affect health. Laws that affect employment, income inequality, housing, the built environment, and education may also impact health. The chapter then considers some defining features of US law that may play a role in creating or perpetuating health disparities both within the US and between the US and other nations of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. It also reviews some recent initiatives in the US, many but not all undertaken via law, to address social determinants, and it looks at the barriers that remain to ameliorating social determinants through law, as well as some reasons for optimism.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-233
Author(s):  
Heather A. Walter-McCabe

The coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic of 2020 has shown a spotlight on inequity in the USA. Although these inequities have long existed, the coronavirus and its disparate impact on health in different communities have raised the visibility of these deeply ingrained inequities to a level that has created a new awareness across the US population and an opportunity to use this heightened awareness of the existing conditions for change. ‘Community and social development’ efforts in the post-pandemic USA can be informed by a health justice framework, across economic, societal and cultural, environmental and social dimensions. Dimensions which have all been implicated in the coronavirus response and complement other social and community development models. Although health disparities and inequities did not begin with coronavirus and will not end in the post-pandemic USA, social and community development efforts which value health justice and concentrate on social determinants of health can provide needed policies and programmes for a more equitable US health system.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document