These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Analysis of current practices in recruitment of residents for Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation: survey of PM&R department chairs.
    Author: Braddom RL, Crawford J, DeLisa JA, Heilman D.
    Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil; 1998; 77(4):317-25. PubMed ID: 9715922.
    Abstract:
    The purpose of this study was to survey the current opinion of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation (PM&R) chairs on issues of resident recruitment. There was a 92% response rate after two mailings. A majority (62%) of chairs reported more difficulty now than two years ago in obtaining an adequate number of American medical graduates for their residency programs. This was true regardless of program size, type, or location. The three highest ranking reasons for this difficulty were as follows: competition from primary internal medicine; primary care emphasis in medical school curriculums; competition from family medicine. The majority of chairs (87%) reported no increased difficulty in recruiting international medical graduates. The three most frequently used recruiting methods were as follows: clinical rotation electives; using faculty as student advisors; teaching in the physical diagnosis course. The chairs' opinion of the three most important reasons residents choose a specific program include the following: having a committed and interested faculty; having happy current residents; having an established program with successful graduates. A reduction in the number of residents in their programs during the next four years was predicted by 27% of the chairs. The chairs also felt that we currently have too many residency slots, preferring numbers of 600 to 1,300 (mean, 1,010). The chairs had no clear choices in methods to downsize programs if that were to be mandated by the federal government but appeared the least interested in doing so by reducing every program by a flat percentage.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]