Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Importance: Student-run free clinics (SRFCs) primarily service the uninsured and are a unique way for medical students to gain hands-on exposure to ophthalmology. The free clinic model takes many different forms- some with episodic and longitudinal models-- and this is mirrored in corresponding eye services.
Objective: To describe SRFC ophthalmology services nationwide.
Design: This was a telephone survey study administered from June through July of 2018.
Setting: This study surveyed medical school SRFC clinics across the United States.
Participants: Survey request was sent to 19 SRFCs previously identified as having ophthalmology services via internet search. Fourteen SRFCs (73%) participated; participants were either student clinic leaders or medical directors. One respondent no longer had a distinct eye clinic so was excluded from relevant results.
Main Outcome And Measure: Characteristics of ophthalmology SRFCs including participants, frequency of sessions, common diagnoses treated, and challenges encountered were assessed through this survey.
Results: On average, each SRFC provided 5.15 hours per month of ophthalmology services. The mean number of medical students involved per session was 8.7. Lack of infrastructure to ensure adequate patient follow-up and faculty recruiting were cited as the main challenges in providing ophthalmology services. Most SRFC leaders indicated exposure to ophthalmology and practice with the exam as the main experiences that students sought and achieved. The most common conditions treated were refractive error (92.3%) and diabetic retinopathy (69.2%).
Conclusion: There are a small number of SRFCs that have ophthalmology services, and they share common features in terms of participants, staffing, and, barriers to sustainability. Ophthalmology services at SRFCs offer a unique venue for medical students to gain exposure to an under-represented field in medical school curricula. The growth of this critical venue for medical student training could be enhanced by recruitment strategies aimed at ophthalmology faculty with a strong interest in service and teaching.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnma.2021.02.004 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!