Dataset Information

A comparison of medical education in Germany and the United States: from applying to medical school to the beginnings of residency.

ABSTRACT: Both Germany and the United States of America have a long tradition of science and medical excellence reaching back as far as the nineteenth century. The same tribute must be paid to the medical educational system in both countries. Despite significant initial similarities and cross-inspiration, the paths from enrolling in a medical university to graduating as a medical doctor in Germany and the US seem to have become much different. To fill a void in literature, the authors' objective therefore is to delineate both structures of medical education in an up-to-date review and examine their current differences and similarities. Recent medical publications, legal guidelines of governmental or official organizations, articles in media, as well as the authors' personal experiences are used as sources of this report. Tuition loans of over $200,000 are not uncommon for students in the US after graduating from medical schools, which are often private institutions. In Germany, however, the vast majority of medical universities are tax-funded and, for this reason, free of tuition. Significant differences and surprisingly multiple similarities exist between these two systems, despite one depending on government and the other on private organizations. Germany currently employs an integrated medical curriculum that typically begins right after high school and consists of a 2-year long pre-clinical segment teaching basic sciences and a 4-year clinical segment leading medical students to the practical aspects of medicine. On the other hand, the US education is a two-stage process. After successful completion of a Bachelor's degree in college, an American student goes through a 4-year medical program encompassing 2 years of basic science and 2 years of clinical training. In this review, we will address some of these similarities and major differences.

SUBMITTER: Zavlin D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5617919 | biostudies-other | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparison of medical education in Germany and the United States: from applying to medical school to the beginnings of residency.

Zavlin Dmitry D Jubbal Kevin T KT Noé Jonas G JG Gansbacher Bernd B

German medical science : GMS e-journal 20170925

Both Germany and the United States of America have a long tradition of science and medical excellence reaching back as far as the nineteenth century. The same tribute must be paid to the medical educational system in both countries. Despite significant initial similarities and cross-inspiration, the paths from enrolling in a medical university to graduating as a medical doctor in Germany and the US seem to have become much different. To fill a void in literature, the authors' objective therefore ...[more]

PMID: 29051721

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEmergency medicine (EM) residents do not generally receive sex- and gender-specific education. There will be increasing attention to this gap as undergraduate medical education integrates it within their curriculum.MethodologyMembers of the Sex and Gender in Emergency Medicine (SGEM) Interest Group set out to develop a SGEM toolkit and pilot integrating developed components at multiple residency sites. The curriculum initiative involved a pre- and posttraining assessment that included basic demographics and queries regarding previous training in sex-/gender-based medicine (SGBM). It was administered to PGY-1 to -4 residents who participated in a 3-hour training session that included one small group case-based discussion, two oral board cases, and one simulation and group debriefing.AnalysisComponents of the developed toolkit (https://www.sexandgenderhealth.org) were implemented at four unique SGEM Interest Group member residency programs. Residents (n = 82/174, 47%) participated; 64% (n = 49) were male and 36% (n = 28) were female. Twenty-six percent (n = 21) of the residents reported that they had less than 1 hour of training in this domain during residency; 59% (n = 48) reported they had 1 to 6 hours and 16% (n = 13) reported they had >6 hours. The average preassessment score was 61% and postassessment was 88%. After training, 74% (n = 60) felt that their current practice would have benefited from further training in sex-/gender-based topics in medicine during medical school and 83% (n = 67) felt their clinical practice would have benefited from further training in this domain during residency.ImplicationsThe majority of EM residents who participated in this training program reported that they had limited instruction in this domain in medical school or residency. This initiative demonstrated a method that can be emulated for the incorporation of SGBM educational components into an EM residency training educational day. After training, the majority of residents who participated felt that their current practice would have benefited from further training in sex- and gender-based topics in residency.

Project description:BackgroundSelecting candidates for plastic surgery residency training remains a challenge. In the United States, academic measures (United States Medical Licensing Exam Step I scores, medical school class rank and publications) are used as primary criteria for candidate selection for residency. In contrast, Canadian medical education de-emphasizes academic measures by using a pass-fail grading system. As a result, choosing residents from many qualified applicants may pose a challenge for Canadian programs without objective measures of academic success.MethodsA 25-question online survey was distributed to program directors of Canadian plastic surgery residency-training programs. Program directors commented on number of yearly residents and applicants; application sections (ranked in importance using a Likert scale); interview invitation and rank-order list determination; and their satisfaction with the selection process.ResultsTen Canadian plastic surgery program directors responded (90.9% response rate). The most important application components determining invitation to interview were letters of reference from a plastic surgeon (mean importance of 5.0 on the Likert scale), clinical electives in plastic surgery (mean 4.6) and electives with their program (mean 4.5). Applicants invited for interview were assessed on the quality of their responses to questions, maturity and personality. The majority of program directors agreed that a clinical elective with their program was important for consideration on their rank-order list. Program directors were neutral on their satisfaction with the selection process.ConclusionCanadian plastic surgery residency programs emphasize clinical electives with their program and letters of reference from colleagues when selecting applicants for interviews. In contrast to their American counterparts, Canadian program directors rely on clinical interactions with prospective residents in the absence of objective academic measures.

Dataset Information

A comparison of medical education in Germany and the United States: from applying to medical school to the beginnings of residency.

Publications

A comparison of medical education in Germany and the United States: from applying to medical school to the beginnings of residency.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets