RESUMEN
The study utilized a cross-sectional design. Data was retrieved from the American Academy of Family Physicians fellowship training directory, including program names, areas of focus, program length, and program descriptions. The collected data was categorized and analyzed based on areas of focus and training duration. The program descriptions were also analyzed qualitatively using Nvivo12 software. A total of 532 programs were included in the study:295 programs (55.5%) were ACGME-certified, while 237 programs (44.5%) were not. The majority of programs, 468 (87.9%), were clinically oriented, while 64 programs (12.1%) were non-clinical. Among ACGME-certified programs, the largest number of programs were in sports medicine (121 programs), followed by geriatrics (52 programs). Among non-certified programs, the largest number of programs was in obstetrics (66 programs), accounting for 27.8% of all non-certified programs. Qualitative research found that fellowship programs were diverse, reflecting the societal demands of healthcare service. Moreover, a significant emphasis was placed on empowering teaching and research abilities.The family medicine fellowship programs in the United States cover a wide range of disciplines and meet both the professional interests of doctors and the needs of patients. As China continues to implement its tiered medical system, it can learn from the experience of the United States and develop general practice subspecialty training programs, thereby improving the service capacity of general practitioners and improve the quality of healthcare.
RESUMEN
Objective:To explore the views of general practitioners (GPs) on developing special interests in the context of the county medical community.Methods:A survey was conducted using self-designed questionnaire from November and December 2019, among 49 general practice residents trained in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine. Meanwhile, structured interviews were undertaken with 14 general practice residents.Results:Forty-nine valid questionnaires were collected with a response rate of 100.0%. All participants were from the county medical community units. The survey showed that 91.8% (45/49) of respondents were willing to develop special interests and 79.6% (39/45) chose one subject, and the top three subjects were endocrinology, gastroenterology and cardiology. The structured interviews demonstrated that most participants did not understand meaning of general practitioners with special interests (GPwSIs) clearly and were unable to distinguish GPwSIs from specialists; they were confused about the status, training mode, and assessment standards of GPwSIs. The interviews also showed that the demand for developing special interests for them was derived from the needs of patients for diagnosis and treatment, the target population of health care services, peer advice and personal interests.Conclusions:Most general practice residents are willing to develop special interests, and internal medicine is the first choice; however, their understanding of the GPwSIs is insufficient. The survey suggests that the position, training model, assessment and certification of GPwSI need to be further clarified.