Value of subspecialty experience in internal medicine undergraduate training

We aimed from our study to assess how students and clinical supervisors perceive students' achievement in the internal medicine subspecialty clinical attachments in comparison with the general attachments. We conducted a cross-sectional study comparing students' self-assessment ratings during the Medicine Block general and subspecialties clinical attachments at our college of medicine during the period between February 2007 and June 2009. We assessed the level of agreement between students' self-assessment in the different subspecialties with their self-assessment in the general attachments. We repeated the same calculation for the supervisors' assessment. Eighty-three students were included; these students attended eight different clinical attachments. A total of 517 self-assessment forms were completed (120 general internal medicine clinical attachments and 397 forms in different specialty attachments). The clinical supervisors completed parallel assessment forms. The undergraduate medical students' perceived their achievement in the subspecialty attachments well. This was similar to their perception of their achievement in the general clinical attachments. The clinical supervisors perceived students achievement in the subspecialties to be similar to their achievement in the general clinical attachments. In conclusion, we do encourage the implementation of specialty and subspecialty undergraduate clinical attachments for all students as part of their curriculum requirements. Furthermore, we encourage the strategic utilization of specialties/subspecialties attachment distribution aiming to enhance students' future interest to achieve balance in the different health specialties/subspecialties manpower. Further research to support this recommendation is needed.