This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (9)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

A Critique

Irwin J. Schatz, MD

Arch Intern Med. 1993;153(9):1045-1052.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

MOMENTUM FOR fundamental change in the education of American medical students is mounting. Alterations of training are suggested as a logical solution for uneven quality of care, lack of primary physicians, and even widespread disability from long-term disease.¹ There is strong sentiment that such modifications also would improve the personal values, attitudes, and professional behaviors of physicians.² Statements supporting this impetus include the following: "the nation is in a health care crisis, [and] to meet this challenge, change in the education of physicians is required";³ and there have been "no important changes in the organization of medical education over half a century."⁴ Tarlov⁵ summarized this philosophy in an eloquent plea for a "revised conceptual frame-work" in which behavioral, sociocultural, and biologic phenomena cast a new configuration for physicians; if adopted, his suggested structure would require substantial changes in medical education. Such pronouncements are persuasive and . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Department of Medicine John A. Burns School of Medicine University of Hawaii 1356 Lusitana St, Seventh Floor Honolulu, HI 9681

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?