4.5 Article

Medical education in Greece: Necessary reforms need to be re-considered

期刊

MEDICAL TEACHER
卷 43, 期 3, 页码 287-292

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2020.1832651

关键词

Curriculum infrastructure; medical education reforms; Greece; primary health care education; medical specialty training

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The inadequacies in the healthcare system in Greece are attributed to issues in medical education, requiring reforms in undergraduate and postgraduate training with a focus on clinical and public health training. Continuing Medical Education is emphasized as a lifelong learning process that should begin in undergraduate training.
For the past years, and even more now with the major challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic, we are faced with the inadequacies that undermine the healthcare system in Greece. As healthcare system performance and medical education are directly and reciprocally linked, a substantial part of healthcare services' dysfunctions could be partially attributed to the training of the young doctors. Thus, in order to improve the performance of the healthcare system in the best interest of patients and communities, the education of healthcare personnel should be a priority. By reviewing the existing literature in combination with our experience we attempt to delineate the weak points of the undergraduate and postgraduate medical education in Greece. Additionally, based on medical curricula from other countries, we suggest reforms in order to achieve a uniform, clinically oriented, emphasis on training in public health issues in undergraduate medical education. Reforms are also suggested for postgraduate training with regard not only to specialization curricula, but also to the accredited institutions which provide specialty training. Finally, the necessity for Continuing Medical Education (CME) is underlined; medical education must have a continuum that begins with undergraduate training but does not end there; it is life-long learning.

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

4.5
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