4.6 Article

A Call for LGBTQ Content in Graduate Medical Education Program Requirements

期刊

ACADEMIC MEDICINE
卷 96, 期 6, 页码 828-835

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003581

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A well-established body of literature shows that LGBTQ individuals experience worse health outcomes and care experiences compared to straight/cisgender individuals. Reforms in medical education have focused on undergraduate programs but lag behind in graduate medical education. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has recently implemented requirements for residents to show respect and responsiveness to diverse populations, signaling the need for LGBTQ-specific training requirements.
A well-developed body of literature demonstrates that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals experience poorer health outcomes and report worse health care experiences than straight/ cisgender individuals. Many reforms since 2010 have addressed the LGBTQ-related education of future health care professionals at the undergraduate medical education (UME) level; however, reforms at the graduate medical education (GME) level are lagging, and new literature suggests that didactic education at the UME level is not enough to prepare future physicians to properly and compassionately care for LGBTQ patients. Recently, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) implemented a major revision of its Common Program Requirements that requires residents to demonstrate, as a competence, respect and responsiveness to diverse populations. Given these revisions and the ongoing failure of many GME training programs to adequately prepare future physicians to care for LGBTQ patients, the authors argue that now is the time for the ACGME to develop and implement LGBTQ health-related residency requirements. In addition, the authors outline a path by which the academic medical community may develop and implement these requirements.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据