- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,811
- Reaction score
- 1,138
The ACGME's recent competency report has been stirring the drink so to speak as of late. While their report in the NEJM did not directly mention any reductions in residency training time, the AMA did state the following on it's webpage
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/meded/2012-march/2012-march.shtml
"For physicians, one of the attractive features of the milestones concept and the focus on outcomes is the possibility of more flexibility in residency length. If, say, a family medicine resident can meet all the milestones in two years rather than three, there's no reason the doctor could not complete the residency and enter into practice."
To play devils advocate to a statement like this (and doing so from the perspective of an inexperienced medstudent-to-be, so please excuse any naivety) I would argue that the breadth of knowledge and skill necessary to become a competent FP requires equally diversified training that may be tough to accomplish in 2 years. Should this not make FM one of the last specialities to implement reduction in training?
A few questions for the interested:
Let's say the option for two years was on the table, is it realistic to say that a FM resident could accomplish all the necessary milestones to become a competent FP in 2 years?
Did your third year of residency provide training that would not have been possible during your first year on the job elsewhere?
Will they water down competencies to increase the chances of finishing in 2 years so that 2 years becomes the norm, while 3 is frowned upon (but in the process produce less competent physicians)?
How do you feel that FM is the first speciality the AMA singled out?
Here's a link to the ACGME report in the NEJM:
http://www.acgme-nas.org/assets/pdf/NEJMfinal.pdf
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/meded/2012-march/2012-march.shtml
"For physicians, one of the attractive features of the milestones concept and the focus on outcomes is the possibility of more flexibility in residency length. If, say, a family medicine resident can meet all the milestones in two years rather than three, there's no reason the doctor could not complete the residency and enter into practice."
To play devils advocate to a statement like this (and doing so from the perspective of an inexperienced medstudent-to-be, so please excuse any naivety) I would argue that the breadth of knowledge and skill necessary to become a competent FP requires equally diversified training that may be tough to accomplish in 2 years. Should this not make FM one of the last specialities to implement reduction in training?
A few questions for the interested:
Let's say the option for two years was on the table, is it realistic to say that a FM resident could accomplish all the necessary milestones to become a competent FP in 2 years?
Did your third year of residency provide training that would not have been possible during your first year on the job elsewhere?
Will they water down competencies to increase the chances of finishing in 2 years so that 2 years becomes the norm, while 3 is frowned upon (but in the process produce less competent physicians)?
How do you feel that FM is the first speciality the AMA singled out?
Here's a link to the ACGME report in the NEJM:
http://www.acgme-nas.org/assets/pdf/NEJMfinal.pdf