• E H Osborn, C Lancaster, J P Bellack, E O'Neil, and D R Graber.
• Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
• Med Educ. 1999 Dec 1;33(12):921-5.

ObjectivesLittle attention has been paid to the differential emphasis undergraduate and graduate medical education programmes place on the broad competencies that will be needed for practice in an increasingly managed health care environment. The purpose of this study was to determine differences in emphasis that undergraduate and primary care graduate medical education programmes are currently placing on 33 broad practice competencies, compared with the emphasis they ideally would like to give them, and the barriers they perceive to curriculum change.DesignSubjects were surveyed by mailed questionnaire. A reminder postcard and follow-up mailing were sent to non-respondents.SettingUS allopathic medical schools.SubjectsAcademic deans identified by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and generalist (family medicine, internal medicine, paediatrics and obstetrics-gynaecology) residency programme directors identified by the American Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME).ResultsFindings revealed that residency programmes placed greater emphasis on the study's broad curriculum topics than did undergraduate medical education programmes. Statistically significant differences were found in current emphasis for 12 topics and ideal emphasis for six topics. Both groups identified an already crowded curriculum and inadequate funding as the top two barriers to curriculum change.ConclusionsThe differences in curriculum emphases and perceived barriers to curriculum change most probably reflect the different realities of undergraduate and graduate medical education programmes, i.e. academics vs. a focus on immediate practice realities.

12 keywords...

hide…