Contributions of general internal medicine teaching units: A national survey

Heidi Nelson, Thomas (Tom) Cooney, Kurt Kroenke, Robert H. Friedman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe general internal medicine teaching units and their educational activities. DESIGN: A cross-sectional mailed survey of heads of general internal medicine teaching units affiliated with U.S. internal medicine training programs who responded between December 1996 and December 1997. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Responses were received from 249 (61%) of 409 eligible programs. Responding and nonresponding programs were similar in terms of university affiliation, geographic region, and size of residency program. Fifty percent of faculty received no funding from teaching units, 37% received full-time (50% or more time), and 13% received part-time (under 50% time) funding from units. Only 23% of faculty were primarily located at universities or medical schools. The majority of faculty were classified as clinicians (15% or less time spent in teaching) or clinician-educators (more than 15% time spent in teaching), and few were clinician-researchers (30% or more time spent in research). Thirty-six percent of faculty were internal medicine subspecialists. All units were involved in training internal medicine residents and medical students, and 21% trained fellows of various types. Half of the units had teaching clinics located in underserved areas, and one fourth had teaching clinics serving more than 50% managed care patients. Heads of teaching units reported that 54% of recent graduating residents chose careers in general internal medicine. CONCLUSIONS: General internal medicine teaching units surveyed contributed substantial faculty effort, much of it unfunded and located off- campus, to training medical students, residents, and fellows. A majority of their graduating residents chose generalist careers.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)277-283
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of General Internal Medicine
Volume15
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 2000

Fingerprint

Internal Medicine
Teaching
Medical Students
Head
Education
Surveys and Questionnaires
Managed Care Programs
Internship and Residency
Medical Schools
Cross-Sectional Studies
Research Personnel
Research

Keywords

  • Internal medicine
  • Medical education
  • Medical students
  • Residents

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Contributions of general internal medicine teaching units : A national survey. / Nelson, Heidi; Cooney, Thomas (Tom); Kroenke, Kurt; Friedman, Robert H.

In: Journal of General Internal Medicine, Vol. 15, No. 5, 2000, p. 277-283.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{bf496dd965b948ed8115775f45f2e344,
title = "Contributions of general internal medicine teaching units: A national survey",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe general internal medicine teaching units and their educational activities. DESIGN: A cross-sectional mailed survey of heads of general internal medicine teaching units affiliated with U.S. internal medicine training programs who responded between December 1996 and December 1997. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Responses were received from 249 (61{\%}) of 409 eligible programs. Responding and nonresponding programs were similar in terms of university affiliation, geographic region, and size of residency program. Fifty percent of faculty received no funding from teaching units, 37{\%} received full-time (50{\%} or more time), and 13{\%} received part-time (under 50{\%} time) funding from units. Only 23{\%} of faculty were primarily located at universities or medical schools. The majority of faculty were classified as clinicians (15{\%} or less time spent in teaching) or clinician-educators (more than 15{\%} time spent in teaching), and few were clinician-researchers (30{\%} or more time spent in research). Thirty-six percent of faculty were internal medicine subspecialists. All units were involved in training internal medicine residents and medical students, and 21{\%} trained fellows of various types. Half of the units had teaching clinics located in underserved areas, and one fourth had teaching clinics serving more than 50{\%} managed care patients. Heads of teaching units reported that 54{\%} of recent graduating residents chose careers in general internal medicine. CONCLUSIONS: General internal medicine teaching units surveyed contributed substantial faculty effort, much of it unfunded and located off- campus, to training medical students, residents, and fellows. A majority of their graduating residents chose generalist careers.",
keywords = "Internal medicine, Medical education, Medical students, Residents",
author = "Heidi Nelson and Cooney, {Thomas (Tom)} and Kurt Kroenke and Friedman, {Robert H.}",
year = "2000",
doi = "10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.03329.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "277--283",
journal = "Journal of General Internal Medicine",
issn = "0884-8734",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Contributions of general internal medicine teaching units

T2 - A national survey

AU - Nelson, Heidi

AU - Cooney, Thomas (Tom)

AU - Kroenke, Kurt

AU - Friedman, Robert H.

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe general internal medicine teaching units and their educational activities. DESIGN: A cross-sectional mailed survey of heads of general internal medicine teaching units affiliated with U.S. internal medicine training programs who responded between December 1996 and December 1997. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Responses were received from 249 (61%) of 409 eligible programs. Responding and nonresponding programs were similar in terms of university affiliation, geographic region, and size of residency program. Fifty percent of faculty received no funding from teaching units, 37% received full-time (50% or more time), and 13% received part-time (under 50% time) funding from units. Only 23% of faculty were primarily located at universities or medical schools. The majority of faculty were classified as clinicians (15% or less time spent in teaching) or clinician-educators (more than 15% time spent in teaching), and few were clinician-researchers (30% or more time spent in research). Thirty-six percent of faculty were internal medicine subspecialists. All units were involved in training internal medicine residents and medical students, and 21% trained fellows of various types. Half of the units had teaching clinics located in underserved areas, and one fourth had teaching clinics serving more than 50% managed care patients. Heads of teaching units reported that 54% of recent graduating residents chose careers in general internal medicine. CONCLUSIONS: General internal medicine teaching units surveyed contributed substantial faculty effort, much of it unfunded and located off- campus, to training medical students, residents, and fellows. A majority of their graduating residents chose generalist careers.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe general internal medicine teaching units and their educational activities. DESIGN: A cross-sectional mailed survey of heads of general internal medicine teaching units affiliated with U.S. internal medicine training programs who responded between December 1996 and December 1997. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Responses were received from 249 (61%) of 409 eligible programs. Responding and nonresponding programs were similar in terms of university affiliation, geographic region, and size of residency program. Fifty percent of faculty received no funding from teaching units, 37% received full-time (50% or more time), and 13% received part-time (under 50% time) funding from units. Only 23% of faculty were primarily located at universities or medical schools. The majority of faculty were classified as clinicians (15% or less time spent in teaching) or clinician-educators (more than 15% time spent in teaching), and few were clinician-researchers (30% or more time spent in research). Thirty-six percent of faculty were internal medicine subspecialists. All units were involved in training internal medicine residents and medical students, and 21% trained fellows of various types. Half of the units had teaching clinics located in underserved areas, and one fourth had teaching clinics serving more than 50% managed care patients. Heads of teaching units reported that 54% of recent graduating residents chose careers in general internal medicine. CONCLUSIONS: General internal medicine teaching units surveyed contributed substantial faculty effort, much of it unfunded and located off- campus, to training medical students, residents, and fellows. A majority of their graduating residents chose generalist careers.

KW - Internal medicine

KW - Medical education

KW - Medical students

KW - Residents

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034127318&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034127318&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.03329.x

DO - 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.03329.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 10840262

AN - SCOPUS:0034127318

VL - 15

SP - 277

EP - 283

JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine

JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine

SN - 0884-8734

IS - 5

ER -