UGRC 2021关于GME转型的建议:利与弊,机遇与限制

J. Gimpel, Jennifer L Swails, J. Bienstock, Grant L Lin, M. Roett, Juhee K. Patel, Daniel Giang
{"title":"UGRC 2021关于GME转型的建议:利与弊,机遇与限制","authors":"J. Gimpel, Jennifer L Swails, J. Bienstock, Grant L Lin, M. Roett, Juhee K. Patel, Daniel Giang","doi":"10.1515/jom-2021-0285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Coalition for Physician Accountability’s Undergraduate Medical Education-Graduate Medical Education (UME-GME) Review Committee (UGRC): Recommendations for Comprehensive Improvement of the UME-GME Transition final report includes a total of 34 recommendations and outlines opportunities to transform the current processes of learner transition from a US-based MD- or DO-granting medical school or international medical education pathway into residency training in the United States. This review provides a reflection on the recommendations from the authors, all members of the UGRC, describing the pros and cons and the opportunities and limitations, in the hopes that they might inspire readers to dig deeper into the report and contribute to meaningful improvements to the current transition. The UGRC Recommendations highlight the many opportunities for improvement in the UME-to-GME transition. They are built on the connection to the system of education and formation of physicians to a more just healthcare system, with attention to diversity, equity, and inclusion to improve health disparities and to the quality of care that patients receive. However, there are justifiable concerns about changes that are not fully understood or that could potentially lead to unintentional consequences. This analysis, reached through author consensus, considers the pros and cons in the potential application of the UGRC Recommendations to improve the UME-to-GME transition. Further debate and discussion are warranted, without undue delay, all with the intention to continue to improve the education of tomorrow’s physicians and the care for the patients who we have the privilege to serve.","PeriodicalId":16639,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Journal of Osteopathic Medicine","volume":"101 1","pages":"461 - 464"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"UGRC 2021 recommendations on GME transition: pros and cons, opportunities and limitations\",\"authors\":\"J. Gimpel, Jennifer L Swails, J. Bienstock, Grant L Lin, M. Roett, Juhee K. Patel, Daniel Giang\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/jom-2021-0285\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The Coalition for Physician Accountability’s Undergraduate Medical Education-Graduate Medical Education (UME-GME) Review Committee (UGRC): Recommendations for Comprehensive Improvement of the UME-GME Transition final report includes a total of 34 recommendations and outlines opportunities to transform the current processes of learner transition from a US-based MD- or DO-granting medical school or international medical education pathway into residency training in the United States. This review provides a reflection on the recommendations from the authors, all members of the UGRC, describing the pros and cons and the opportunities and limitations, in the hopes that they might inspire readers to dig deeper into the report and contribute to meaningful improvements to the current transition. The UGRC Recommendations highlight the many opportunities for improvement in the UME-to-GME transition. They are built on the connection to the system of education and formation of physicians to a more just healthcare system, with attention to diversity, equity, and inclusion to improve health disparities and to the quality of care that patients receive. However, there are justifiable concerns about changes that are not fully understood or that could potentially lead to unintentional consequences. This analysis, reached through author consensus, considers the pros and cons in the potential application of the UGRC Recommendations to improve the UME-to-GME transition. Further debate and discussion are warranted, without undue delay, all with the intention to continue to improve the education of tomorrow’s physicians and the care for the patients who we have the privilege to serve.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16639,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Journal of Osteopathic Medicine\",\"volume\":\"101 1\",\"pages\":\"461 - 464\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Journal of Osteopathic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/jom-2021-0285\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Journal of Osteopathic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jom-2021-0285","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

医师问责联盟的本科医学教育-研究生医学教育(UME-GME)审查委员会(UGRC):全面改进UME-GME过渡的建议最终报告包括总共34条建议,并概述了将当前学习者从美国MD或do授予医学院或国际医学教育途径转变为美国住院医师培训的机会。本综述对UGRC所有成员的作者提出的建议进行了反思,描述了优点和缺点、机遇和局限性,希望这些建议能够激励读者深入研究报告,并为当前转型做出有意义的改进。UGRC的建议强调了在中小企业向中小企业过渡的过程中有许多改进的机会。它们建立在与教育系统的联系和医生形成更公正的医疗保健系统的基础上,注重多样性、公平和包容性,以改善健康差距和患者接受的护理质量。然而,对于没有完全理解或可能导致无意后果的变化,存在合理的担忧。这一分析是通过作者的共识达成的,考虑了UGRC建议在潜在应用中的利弊,以改善ume到gme的过渡。进一步的辩论和讨论是必要的,没有不必要的拖延,所有这些都是为了继续改善未来医生的教育和对我们有幸服务的病人的照顾。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
UGRC 2021 recommendations on GME transition: pros and cons, opportunities and limitations
Abstract The Coalition for Physician Accountability’s Undergraduate Medical Education-Graduate Medical Education (UME-GME) Review Committee (UGRC): Recommendations for Comprehensive Improvement of the UME-GME Transition final report includes a total of 34 recommendations and outlines opportunities to transform the current processes of learner transition from a US-based MD- or DO-granting medical school or international medical education pathway into residency training in the United States. This review provides a reflection on the recommendations from the authors, all members of the UGRC, describing the pros and cons and the opportunities and limitations, in the hopes that they might inspire readers to dig deeper into the report and contribute to meaningful improvements to the current transition. The UGRC Recommendations highlight the many opportunities for improvement in the UME-to-GME transition. They are built on the connection to the system of education and formation of physicians to a more just healthcare system, with attention to diversity, equity, and inclusion to improve health disparities and to the quality of care that patients receive. However, there are justifiable concerns about changes that are not fully understood or that could potentially lead to unintentional consequences. This analysis, reached through author consensus, considers the pros and cons in the potential application of the UGRC Recommendations to improve the UME-to-GME transition. Further debate and discussion are warranted, without undue delay, all with the intention to continue to improve the education of tomorrow’s physicians and the care for the patients who we have the privilege to serve.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信