Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Clinical Medicine Journal

  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Clinical Medicine Journal

clinmedicine Logo
  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

Core medical training to internal medicine training: progress or a step backwards?

James Orr
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmed.Let.22.4.1
Clin Med July 2022
James Orr
Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK
Roles: Consultant hepatologist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Editor – When Prof Sir David Greenaway proposed changes to the way in which physicians train in 2013, he suggested increasing the length of post-foundation training in general internal medicine (GIM) training to 3 years, rather than 2 years.1 This was with the intention that all physicians would be generalists first and specialists later.

However, the implementation of internal medicine training (IMT) has led to a division into ‘group 1’ and ‘group 2’ specialties. The group 1 specialties are those which traditionally contribute to the acute receiving rota (‘the take’), such as respiratory medicine and gastroenterology, while the group 2 specialties are those which are perceived as highly specialised, such as dermatology and oncology. Group 1 specialty trainees must now complete 3 years of GIM but their specialty training is condensed into 4 years, rather than the 5 years previously, while group 2 specialties continue to have 5 years to complete their specialty training.

This could disadvantage trainees in group 1 specialties who will continue to gain experience of GIM during post-IM3 training, at the expense of gaining training in their specialty. Furthermore, one could argue that trainees in group 2 specialties could benefit from a broader based GIM training before learning the nuances of their specialty.

Most of us are not born knowing which specialty we wish to do and trainees will make career decisions at different points in their training. The trainee who plans a career in a group 1 specialty may change their mind to pursue a career in a group 2 specialty, even as late as during the third year and they should be encouraged to make career decisions that suit them. The 2 year/3 year hybrid training model creates a huge administrative burden and, more importantly, potentially disadvantages the trainees. Do we need to finesse the post-foundation, pre-specialty training of our future physicians a little further?

  • © Royal College of Physicians 2022. All rights reserved.

Reference

  1. ↵
    Shape of Training. Securing the future of excellent patient care. Shape of Training, 2013.
Back to top
Previous article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Core medical training to internal medicine training: progress or a step backwards?
James Orr
Clinical Medicine Jul 2022, 22 (4) 380; DOI: 10.7861/clinmed.Let.22.4.1

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Core medical training to internal medicine training: progress or a step backwards?
James Orr
Clinical Medicine Jul 2022, 22 (4) 380; DOI: 10.7861/clinmed.Let.22.4.1
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Reference
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The association of pleural effusion and pulmonary embolism
  • What is the impact of COVID-19 on complaints against doctors?
Show more Letters to the editor

Similar Articles

FAQs

  • Difficulty logging in.

There is currently no login required to access the journals. Please go to the home page and simply click on the edition that you wish to read. If you are still unable to access the content you require, please let us know through the 'Contact us' page.

  • Can't find the CME questionnaire.

The read-only self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) can be found after the CME section in each edition of Clinical Medicine. RCP members and fellows (using their login details for the main RCP website) are able to access the full SAQ with answers and are awarded 2 CPD points upon successful (8/10) completion from:  https://cme.rcplondon.ac.uk

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home
clinmedicine Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians