scholarly journals Educating Tomorrow's Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons in Canada: An Evolving Process

1996 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
David S. Mulder
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Thoracic Surgery ◽  
Graduate Medical Education ◽  
Royal College ◽  
General Surgery ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Graduate Medical ◽  
The Past ◽  
Primary Specialty

Societal (1), technological, organizational (2), and educational developments during the past ten years havebrought about increasing pressures for change in the graduate medical education of cardiac and thoracicsurgeons (3). These changes effectively lengthened their training to eight years and created a double standardfor the education of a thoracic surgeon. A task force mandated by the Royal College of Physicians andSurgeons of Canada nucleus committees in both cardiac and thoracic surgery, with the support of theCanadian Society of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgeons, addressed these issues and made the followingrecommendations: cardiac surgery and thoracic surgery should each become a primary specialty with its ownnucleus committee. Each specialty would require six years of training, with the possibility of obtainingcertification in both specialties after an additional eighteen months of training. Each specialty could also beentered after the completion of full training in general surgery. In addition, the task force urged thedevelopment of a curriculum to guide educational objectives in each specialty. These changes promise tocreate a flexible, shorter, and more focused program for cardiac and thoracic surgeons in both university andcommunity settings.

Residency Training and Continuing Medical Education in School Health

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 92 (3) ◽  
pp. 495-496
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
American Academy ◽  
Graduate Medical Education ◽  
Continuing Medical Education ◽  
School Health ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Pediatric Practice ◽  
Graduate Medical ◽  
American Academy Of Pediatrics

Children between the ages of 5 and 18 spend a significant amount of their time in school. School health is a vital part of pediatric practice and an important concern for pediatric graduate medical education. There are few substantiated data, however, to suggest that residents entering pediatric practice or academic medicine are exposed to school health in a significant way. Many pediatricians, upon entering practice, find that they are consulted by school systems and parents whose children have problems related to school. Pediatricians find themselves unprepared for this new role and express the need for postgraduate education in school health.1-4 The American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Pediatric Education5 and the most recent report from the Pediatric Residency Review Committee have both underscored the appropriateness and importance of education in school health as an important part of the residency curriculum.6 The American Academy of Pediatrics believes that education in school health should be an important part of graduate medical education for pediatric residents and of continuing medical education for practicing pediatricians. Many advances in pediatrics that affect the well-being of the child relate directly to the school setting. Increased attention to federal legislation (Section 504 of PL 93-112, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; parts B and H of PL 102-119, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), health education including education about the prevention of drug and alcohol abuse and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, new approaches to screening and health services in the schools, immunization requirements, physical fitness, and knowledge about the school environment—all are important aspects of school health and areas in which many residents and/or pediatricians have had little or no training or experience.

scholarly journals Patterns of Change in ACGME-Accredited Residency Programs and Positions: Implication for the Adequacy of GME Positions and Supply of Physicians in the United States

2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 399-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen D. Holt ◽  
Rebecca S. Miller ◽  
Ingrid Philibert ◽  
Thomas J. Nasca
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Medical School ◽  
Graduate Medical Education ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Population Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
Graduate Medical ◽  
The Past ◽  
Accredited Institutions ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Recent studies suggest that the supply of primary care physicians and generalist physicians in other specialties may be inadequate to meet the needs of the US population. Data on the numbers and types of physicians-in-training, such as those collected by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), can be used to help understand variables affecting this supply. Objective We assessed trends in the number and type of medical school graduates entering accredited residencies, and the impact those trends could have on the future physician workforce. Methods Since 2004, the ACGME has published annually its data on accredited institutions, programs, and residents to help the graduate medical education community understand major trends in residency education, and to help guide graduate medical education policy. We present key results and trends for the period between academic years 2003–2004 and 2012–2013. Results The data show that increases in trainees in accredited programs are not uniform across specialties, or the types of medical school from which trainees graduated. In the past 10 years, the growth in residents entering training that culminates in initial board certification (“pipeline” specialties) was 13.0%, the number of trainees entering subspecialty education increased 39.9%. In the past 5 years, there has been a 25.8% increase in the number of osteopathic physicians entering allopathic programs. Conclusions These trends portend challenges in absorbing the increasing numbers of allopathic and osteopathic graduates, and US international graduates in accredited programs. The increasing trend in subspecialization appears at odds with the current understanding of the need for generalist physicians.

scholarly journals An Examination of Advocacy Education in Residency Training

2019 ◽  
Vol 144 (4) ◽  
pp. 497-499
Author(s):  
Candice C. Black ◽  
Amy Motta
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Residency Training ◽  
Graduate Medical Education ◽  
Chief Resident ◽  
Home Program ◽  
External Resources ◽  
Graduate Medical ◽  
The Past ◽  
Core Requirements ◽  
Selection Of

Context.— Pathology-related advocacy is best when performed directly by pathologists. Practicing advocacy is included in the Milestones 2.0 and should be introduced during residency training. Objective.— To understand advocacy education in residency training we surveyed pathologists to ask what training they had in residency, what resources were available, and what experiences were most impressionable. Design.— Two types of inquiry were performed. First, a survey to program graduates asking about leadership and advocacy activities during training and about leadership and advocacy activities since graduation. Secondly, focused email and telephone inquiries were made to 12 pathologists—4 in practice for more than 20 years, 4 within the first 10 years of practice, and to 4 PGY4 (postgraduate year 4) residents—asking what training and experiences were available to them, and how they became motivated to become active in practice. Results.— Our results showed that resources available outside of the home program have changed through the years and more national resident groups are available that were not available in the past. These groups may educate trainees in leadership and advocacy. Internally, opportunities to shadow faculty at interdepartmental leadership meetings, as well as selection of the chief resident, are enduring tools for honing these skills. Conclusions.— Teaching advocacy in training is important and part of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core requirements as well as a level 5 Milestone. Education may require a balance of internal and external resources since different programs may offer different opportunities. Shadowing during real advocacy events was the most impressionable experience.

Understanding ACGME Scholarly Activity Requirements for General Surgery Programs in the Era of Single Accreditation and the Next Accreditation System

2018 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 40-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph J. Stella ◽  
Donna L. Lamb ◽  
Steven C. Stain ◽  
Paula M. Termuhlen
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Graduate Medical Education ◽  
General Surgery ◽  
Scholarly Activity ◽  
Accreditation System ◽  
Graduate Medical ◽  
Show Evidence ◽  
Next Accreditation System ◽  
Training Of Surgeons ◽  
To Receive

Becoming compliant with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements for scholarly activity and remaining compliant over time requires time and attention to the development of an environment of inquiry, which is reflected in detailed documentation submitted in program applications and annual updates. Since the beginning of the next accreditation system, all ACGME programs have been required to submit evidence of scholarly activity of both residents and faculty on an annual basis. Since 2014, American Osteopathic Association–accredited programs have been able to apply for ACGME accreditation under the Single Graduate Medical Education Accreditation initiative. The Residency Program Director, Chair, Designated Institutional Official, Faculty, and coordinator need to work cohesively to ensure compliance with all program requirements, including scholarly activity in order for American Osteopathic Association–accredited programs to receive Initial ACGME Accreditation and for current ACGME-accredited programs to maintain accreditation. Fortunately, there are many ways to show the type of scholarly activity that is required for the training of surgeons. In this article, we will review the ACGME General Surgery Program Requirements and definitions of scholarly activity. We will also offer suggestions for how programs may show evidence of scholarly activity.

What is the Value of a Burn Surgery Rotation in Surgical Residency?

2019 ◽  
Vol 85 (12) ◽  
pp. 1314-1317
Author(s):  
Laura S. Johnson ◽  
Taryn E. Travis ◽  
Jeffrey W. Shupp
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Critical Care ◽  
Graduate Medical Education ◽  
General Surgery ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Graduate Medical ◽  
Surgical Case ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Case Logs ◽  
Critical Care Patients

Declining case volumes on trauma rotations and early specialization of traditional surgical rotations have limited the service lines on which general surgery residents can obtain critical operative and management experience. Meanwhile, a significant portion of residents have no exposure to a burn rotation during their training. A burn rotation may address both of these issues in a meaningful way. Surgical case volumes and burn ICU patient volume were queried for an urban regional verified burn referral center. General surgery program resident case logs were queried for procedures performed during a burn rotation during that same time period. Over a four-year time period, three burn surgeons performed a total of 2374 procedures on burn and wound service patients. In the burn ICU over that same time period, 419 individual critical care patients were managed. Twenty-seven general surgery program residents logged 632 major operations and 67 critical care patients; more than 50 per cent of cases performed were not captured by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education case log system. A high volume burn service can adequately provide surgical and critical care exposure to junior surgical residents. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education surgical case logs may not fully represent the full scope of exposure sustained on a high-volume burn service.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document