If we start cutting out our years of training, we won't be much different from the NPs who are lacking it.
Not really no. Undergrad is a complete and total waste of time.
If we start cutting out our years of training, we won't be much different from the NPs who are lacking it.
That's one opinion.Not really no. Undergrad is a complete and total waste of time.
These are the two extremes... There can be a middle ground here, which is 3 yrs prereqs without committing yourself to med school and 3 yrs med school. The latter being is being adopted by a few US med school now.Undergraduate medical degrees are generally 6 years, so one could consider that the US system includes about 2 y worth of premed requirements plus 2 years of general education, so 8 years from HS to medical degree vs 6 years in the direct system.
Personally I think there is value in the additional time to explore, including internships and volunteer work. I did part of HS in Europe and part in the US, and I have a number of European friends who feel their lives might have been quite different if they hadn't been forced to choose their life direction at 18 with no practical experience of anything. Most people in the US who say they want to be doctors when they are in high school don't actually end up in that profession.
Curious where they cut from? No MS4 year or do they take months from other years?My partner is currently in medical school in a 3 year primary care track program, shaving off a year from the med school/residency process. I really think there should be more of these programs. I know that NYU has a program like this that isn’t limited to primary care. Maybe if these programs expanded and became widely popular they could serve as a model for reform and reducing med school to 3 years.
I'm at an academic center, and our outpatient clinic is very midlevel heavy. MDs are used more in a consultative role - e.g., a patient is not responding to the first few medication trials, is sent to a MD for a "consult," and the MD provides recommendations that the midlevel then theoretically executes - or for complex/difficult cases.
As with all things, the quality of midlevels can vary significantly. Some are great. Some are horrible. Some clearly demonstrate that they're thinking about the case in their documentation and can pick up on subtle, atypical aspects of the case that warrant a different approach, others can't write a note that makes sense to save their life. I'm not a fan of the expanding role of essentially independent midlevels, but now that that train has left the station I don't think there's any going back - there's too much incentive for healthcare systems (midlevels are cheaper and theoretically can do 90% of what MDs do) and now that relatively autonomous midlevel practice has been in place, I can't imagine that most midlevels are going to be interested in anything less than that.