This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor:—
The number and quality of responses indicates thoughtful concern about this problem, not only among general practitioners but among educators and members of the specialty groups as well. There seems to be wide recognition that this problem addresses itself to the entire profession rather than any one of its subdivisions.There are understandable misgivings about "departments of general practice... in every teaching institution." To fit the current educational architecture, a general practice department would of necessity be primarily an administrative unit at the graduate level. The proper content of a general-practice training program remains to be clearly delineated.Any approach to this many-sided dilemma must begin with definitions of what, and to what depth, the general practitioner should be taught. A program that is too broad or too shallow, or too narrowly spotty in useless depth, must be avoided.Exception has been taken to the statement that
Foster GR. Crisis in General Practice. JAMA. 1964;188(11):1018. doi:10.1001/jama.1964.03060370074037