Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to B M LeClair.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine the perceived adequacy of residency training for current practice by Army family physicians; (2) to ascertain if differences exist by residency setting: medical center, medical activity, or civilian. METHODS: Surveys were mailed to the 334 family physicians in the Army in 1993. Training in various subject areas was rated as inadequate, adequate, or overly prepared. RESULTS: More than 75% of respondents felt prepared in 76% of general medical subjects (GM) but in only 39% of family medicine subjects (FM). There were no practice management subjects in which more than 75% felt adequately prepared. There were no differences in perceptions of GM or FM training between military- and civilian-trained respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Army and civilian residencies prepare family physicians for the medical aspects of practice. Early training in management subjects could be enhanced. Civilian and Army programs could improve training in family medicine subjects.
INTRODUCTION: As numbers of family physicians decrease in the Army, the Army needs to know how satisfied they are with being family physicians and military officers. What variables are associated with these satisfactions? METHODS: This was a cross-sectional mailed survey of Army family physicians (N = 334). The response rate was 82% (N = 274). The survey included questions with a Likert scale and was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis, one-way analysis of variance, and logistic regression. RESULTS: Ninety-two percent were satisfied with being family physicians and 74% were satisfied with being military officers. The variables associated with satisfaction were rank (positively associated) and percent time in patient care (negatively associated). CONCLUSIONS: Army family physicians are more satisfied with being family physicians than they are with being military officers. They are, however, satisfied with both professions. The Army, as an organization, may want to explore how its system of rewards interplay with rank and amount of time in patient care to make them predictive of satisfaction.
BACKGROUND: There has been a dramatic decline nationwide in family physicians practicing obstetrics. This study describes the practice of obstetrics by Army family physicians in an environment relatively free of malpractice liability and other financial concerns. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to every family physician on active duty in the Army (n = 334) in 1993, with a final response rate of 79 percent (n = 265). RESULTS: Nearly 73 percent of Army family physicians practice obstetrics. Almost all believed they were adequately prepared to provide routine prenatal care (98 percent) and complicated obstetric care (84 percent). More than 95 percent of those assigned to a teaching facility delivered babies. Obstetric procedures that the majority performed included normal vaginal deliveries (100 percent), repair of third-degree (98 percent) and fourth-degree (93 percent) tears, insertion of fetal scalp electrodes (96 percent) and intrauterine pressure catheters (98 percent), interpretation of nonstress tests (97 percent) and contraction stress tests (83 percent), vacuum extractions (93 percent), pudendal or paracervical blocks (88 percent), first assist in Cesarean sections (80 percent), amnioinfusions (76 percent), and low-forceps deliveries (53 percent). Those who currently practice obstetrics were more satisfied with being a family physician compared with those who did not practice obstetrics (95 percent vs 86 percent, P < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of Army family physicians perform a wide spectrum of obstetrics care. Those who practiced obstetrics were generally more satisfied with family practice than were those who did not practice obstetrics.