- Joined
- May 22, 2014
- Messages
- 219
- Reaction score
- 260
Hello,
II have a great interest in PRS and I am interested in learning a bit more about the two residency options for the specialty. More specifically, I am wondering what the pros and cons are of the integrated PRS residency spot and the Traditional route. (By way of brief intro., for the sake of context, I am hoping to matriculate at a medical school in 2015).
Of course, it is clear that one who takes the integrated route will save time in the long run, and enter into practice earlier than an individual who goes the traditional route. But what about the differences in the actual content taught between the programs? From what I've read, integrated PRS residents tend to be viewed as more knowledgeable in their field, but have less developed technical surgical skills compared to their traditional counterparts. [1] Is this a function of a more specialized training for the integrated resident, and more hands-on experience by the traditional resident?
I am not quite sure how to interpret this information -so please forgive me for this undeveloped assumption - but does this mean that the integrated PRS program focuses more closely on the information set that is primarily relevant to the field, as opposed to say, gastro/ortho based information that is not necessarily an essential part of training in the PRS surgeon's knowledge base?
Are there any other advantages to the integrated system (or the traditional system, for that matter) that I might be overlooking? Any other fundamental aspects between them that are important to know?
Many thanks for your responses.
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22743900
II have a great interest in PRS and I am interested in learning a bit more about the two residency options for the specialty. More specifically, I am wondering what the pros and cons are of the integrated PRS residency spot and the Traditional route. (By way of brief intro., for the sake of context, I am hoping to matriculate at a medical school in 2015).
Of course, it is clear that one who takes the integrated route will save time in the long run, and enter into practice earlier than an individual who goes the traditional route. But what about the differences in the actual content taught between the programs? From what I've read, integrated PRS residents tend to be viewed as more knowledgeable in their field, but have less developed technical surgical skills compared to their traditional counterparts. [1] Is this a function of a more specialized training for the integrated resident, and more hands-on experience by the traditional resident?
I am not quite sure how to interpret this information -so please forgive me for this undeveloped assumption - but does this mean that the integrated PRS program focuses more closely on the information set that is primarily relevant to the field, as opposed to say, gastro/ortho based information that is not necessarily an essential part of training in the PRS surgeon's knowledge base?
Are there any other advantages to the integrated system (or the traditional system, for that matter) that I might be overlooking? Any other fundamental aspects between them that are important to know?
Many thanks for your responses.
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22743900
