 |
|
Comments on the Commentaries
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1998;55:309.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
THE THOUGHTFUL and constructive commentaries, based on our account of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) report and on the report itself, range beyond it to issues central to the future of psychiatry and, indeed, to the medical profession. We too believe that many of the issues raised are more open than one might think. We heartily agree with Michels and Pardes that at least 3 major points need raising or reemphasizing: a careful consideration of psychiatry as an important and changing specialty in need of graduate medical education (GME) support, better elucidation of the relationships of undergraduate education and GME now and in the future, and useful critiques of the GME system as it affects services to otherwise deprived populations as well as the supply, specialty choices, and future employment of physicians.
The IOM report did not take up workforce restructuring for the reasons noted in the report. Our personal . . . [Full Text of this Article]
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLES
Proposals for Funding Graduate Medical Education: The Institute of Medicine Report in Context
Roger C. Herdman and Rosemary A. Stevens
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1998;55(4):299-302.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Half a Loaf: Is Compromise the Best Policy?
Robert Michels
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1998;55(4):303-304.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Institute of Medicine Report on Graduate Medical Education
Herbert Pardes
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1998;55(4):307-308.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
