Grand cru versus generic: different approaches to altering the ratio of general internists to subspecialists

Resolving the conflicts between general and subspecialty medicine: the internist as consulting physician-scientist

Internal medicine is confronting a conflict between its generalist and specialty roles, coupled with a conflict between the needs of academic internal medicine in contrast to those of private practice. The historical origins of these conflicts are explored. To resolve these conflicts, internal medicine must rediscover the common ground shared by the general internist and specialist, academician and practitioner. This common ground is best found in the role of internist as physician-scientist. In the future, specialists and general internists will need to emphasize their roles as consultants. In the process, internal medicine will become smaller and more "academic." The benefits of this role for internal medicine should be rapidly demonstrated through outcomes based research in order to win over skeptical payors, peers, and the public at large.

The opinion of current and recent internal medicine residents regarding a fourth year of training and the future of general internal medicine. American College of Physicians National Council of Associates

OBJECTIVE

To determine the opinion of current residents and recent graduates of internal medicine training programs regarding an additional mandatory year of residency training.

METHODS

A survey was made of 2,000 associate members of the American College of Physicians from five geographic regions.

RESULTS

Of 917 respondents, 70.3% thought a fourth year of training would impact negatively on their choice of a career in internal medicine, and 82.9% believed a mandatory fourth year should not be required of residents choosing a subspecialty career. Furthermore, 58.1% of physicians surveyed thought a mandatory fourth year would discourage individuals from pursuing subspecialty careers. If a mandatory fourth year of training were required, 50.7% respondents indicated that it should consist of ambulatory training in a number of general fields, while 49.6% physicians believed the training should focus on one or two subspecialty fields.

CONCLUSIONS

A mandatory fourth year of training is not supported by residents and recent graduates of the programs surveyed.

Subspecialization in internal medicine: a historical review, an analysis, and proposals for change

The recent decline in the production of primary care physicians has been associated with a decrease in the production of general internists and an increase in the number of medical subspecialists. A significant majority of entering internal medicine residents anticipate entering a medical subspecialty. This transition in the development of medical manpower, perceived by some as inappropriate, is analyzed in light of historical trends in the evolution of internal medicine and its subspecialties, and in conjunction with the roles played by the American Board of Internal Medicine and the National Institutes of Health. Evidence is presented that the creation of virtually independent subspecialty departments may have been detrimental to the education of physicians and not productive of the physician scientists they are assumed to create. Current recommendations for reform are reviewed and a new proposal is presented, suggesting increasing the length of the medical residency from 3 to 4 years, incorporating subspecialty training in one or more fields into the third year of the residency, removing "duration of training" as a requirement for board eligibility in a subspecialty, transferring the certification of technical competence in a procedure to local institutions, and creating investigational units in basic disciplines within the department of internal medicine that would serve as a resource for all the subspecialty divisions.