Hernández CJR, Carrasco RJA

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 37-41
PDF size: 62.20 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To know the perception of the resident in general surgery regarding his/her working future within the specialty and whether there are differences between training in the private and the public sectors.
Setting: XXVIII National Congress of General Surgery of the Mexican Association of General Surgery “Dr. Joaquín Aldrete” in the city of León, Gto. Mexico.
Design: Prospective, observational, comparative study.
Statistical analysis: Percentages as summary measure for qualitative variables and chi square.
Material and methods: A multiple choice interview was applied to general surgery residents, inquiring on: schooling level, participation as surgeon or assistant, educational levels received, number of study hours and of classes per week, levels of competency in surgical procedures, and perception on the working future.
Results: Hundred-twenty-one general surgery residents, the largest attendance corresponded to 2nd year residents (31.4%) and from the public sector (88.4%). Those from the public sector participate more times as surgeons (20.6%) as compared to the private sector (7%) (p › 0.001); 18.2% consider the training in his/her hospital insufficient with less than 1 hour of teaching per week in 31.8%. Once finished the specialty, 70% of the residents from the public sector feel it is easy to get a job as compared to 52.6% of the residents coming from private hospitals: 9.1% of those graduating from the private sector plan to get involved in an activity different from general surgery.
Conclusion: The perception of a working future is better for the residents being trained in the public sector.

REFERENCES

1. García-Romero H, Gutiérrez-Samperio C. Enseñanza e investigación en cirugía. En: Gutiérrez SC. Arrubarrena AVM. Fisiopatología quirúrgica del aparato digestivo. 2ª Edición; México, D.F. El Manual Moderno 1996: 967-981.

2. Ko CY, Whang EE, Karamanoukian R, Longmire WP, McFadden DW. What is the best method of surgical training?: a report of America’s leading senior surgeons. Arch Surg 1998; 133: 900-5.

3. Brennan MF, Debas HT. Surgical Education in the United States: portents of change. Ann Surg 2004; 240: 565-72.

4. Cooper RA. Medical Schools and their applicants: an analysis. Health Aff 2003; 22: 71-84.

5. De la Fuente R. La especialización en medicina. Rev Fac Med UNAM 1992; 35: 133-137.

6. Lifschitz A. Perfil profesional de especialista en medicina. Rev Fac Med UNAM 1992; 35: 149-155.

7. Barshes NR, Vavra AK, Miller A, Brunicardi FC, Goss JA, Sweeney JF. General surgery as a career: a contemporary review of factors central to medical student specialty choice. J Am Coll Surg 2004; 199: 792-9.

8. Blakemore LC, Hall JM, Biermann JS. Women in surgical residency training programs. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85-A: 2477-80.

9. Wright SM, Kern DE, Kolodner K, Howard DM, Brancati FL. Attributes of excellent attending-physician role models. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 1986-93.

10. Dorsey ER, Jarjoura D, Rutecki GW. Influence of controllable lifestyle on recent trend in specialty choice by US Medical Students. JAMA 2003; 290: 1173-8.

11. Morris JB, Leibrandt TJ, Rhodes RS. Voluntary changes in surgery career paths: a survey of the program director in surgery. J Am Coll Surg 2003; 196: 611-6.

12. Kwakwa F, Jonasson O. The longitudinal study of surgical residents 1994-1996. J Am Coll Surg 1999; 188: 575-85.

13. Curet MJ, DaRosa D, Mennin S. University and practice-based physicians’ input on the content of a surgical curriculum. Am J Surg 1999; 178: 78-84.