PubMed · 13098035
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
1953-09-26. GENERAL practice.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13098035/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether medical graduates who spent their intern year at a non-metropolitan hospital were more likely to practise outside metropolitan areas on completion of training than were interns in metropolitan hospitals. DESIGN: Retrospective follow-up of doctors who held year-long internships at a non-metropolitan hospital and interns from metropolitan hospitals. SETTING: Ballarat Base Hospital (BBH) (Rural, Remote and Metropolitan Area [RRMA] rural zone) and hospitals in Melbourne and Geelong (RRMA metropolitan zone). PARTICIPANTS: 57/63 (90%) Victorian medical graduates completing internships at BBH between 1989 and 1997 and 126/126 (100%) sex-matched metropolitan interns, chosen at random. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Practice location in 2002. RESULTS: More BBH interns were practising as GPs outside metropolitan areas (44%) than metropolitan interns (13%) (difference, 31%; 95% CI, 17%-45%). The proportion of interns in specialist practice outside metropolitan areas was small for both groups - zero and 3%, respectively (difference, - 3%; 95% CI, - 6% to 0). None of the specialist training posts held by interns were outside metropolitan areas. Of BBH interns entering general practice, 41% (95% CI, 24%-58%) did so in the local health region. CONCLUSIONS: Regional interns are a good source of non-metropolitan GPs, especially locally. Prospective studies to determine the precise influence of regional internships on eventual practice location, and whether more such posts would lead to more graduates entering non-metropolitan practice, would be worthwhile.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The first revision of the Dutch College of General Practitioners' practice guideline about pregnancy and puerperium does not significantly differ from the first edition. The guideline is extensive, is well-worth reading and supports daily practice. There is a greater emphasis on the importance of cooperation and differentiation in primary care (midwifes and general practitioners). During the last decade many general practitioners stopped doing home deliveries and have therefore lost their experience in obstetric care and pathology. The guideline describes the general practitioner's tasks as a preconception counsellor, a professional expert on illnesses during pregnancy and after the delivery, and as the doctor of the newborn baby. It will hopefully stimulate a revived interest of and involvement in pregnancy and post-partum care among general practitioners.