Curriculum and Training Difficulties of Family Medicine Residency Programs in Korea.
- Author:
Yu Jin PAEK
1
;
Ho Cheol SHIN
;
Cheol Hawn KIM
;
Youn Seon CHOI
;
Hang LEE
;
Ae Kyung CHO
;
Eon Sook LEE
;
Jin Ho PARK
;
Yoon Jung CHANG
;
Min Jung KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Family Medicine, Hallym Sacred Heart Hospital, College of Medicine, Hallym University, Anyang, Korea. paek@hallym.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
family medicine;
residency;
training;
curriculum;
subjects
- MeSH:
Appointments and Schedules;
Curriculum*;
Dermatology;
Emergencies;
Evidence-Based Medicine;
Geriatrics;
Health Promotion;
Hospice Care;
Humans;
Internship and Residency*;
Korea*;
Obesity;
Ophthalmology;
Otolaryngology;
Postal Service;
Smoking Cessation;
Surveys and Questionnaires
- From:Journal of the Korean Academy of Family Medicine
2007;28(5):367-374
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to survey the current status of family medicine residency programs and to evaluate the difficulties in training of the curriculums. METHODS: Questionnaires on residency programs were sent to all the centers of residency programs by mail in April 2006. The questionnaire included detailed characteristics of residency programs, curriculum schedule, reasons for failed specific curriculum, and review and measures by the program center and the Korean Academy of Family Medicine to resolve problematic curriculums. RESULTS: A total of 113 residency programs responded. Among the 93 residency programs except for the 20 subsidiary hospitals, inadeguate subjects were mainly dermatology (12 programs, 12.3%), psychiatry (6 programs, 7.5%), ophthalmology (5 programs, 7.1%), and otolaryngology (5 programs, 7.1%). Training rejection rate was higher in dermatology (13 programs, 14.4%), radiology (11 programs, 13.1%), gastrofibroscopy (8 programs, 9.5%), and psychiatry (5 programs, 6.2%). Emergency me-dicine in 4 programs and general surgery in 3 programs had a longer duration of training than initially planned. Difficulties in training some subjects were due to failed establishment of specific curriculums in non-university hospital. Commonly established clinics were health promotion center, obesity clinic, smoking cessation clinic, geriatric clinic, stress clinic, and clinical nutrition clinic. Family medicine center programs included gastrofibroscopy, obesity, smoking cessation, geriatrics, hospice care, and evidence-based medicine. CONCLUSION: There is repeated demand for taking measures to promote better curriculum in the nation-wide view of family medicine. Dermatology, radiology, psychiatry, and otolaryngology were the subjects difficult to receive training. Measures to strengthen the weak subjects are urgently needed.
