Martín R, Delgado J M, Gómez R, Puigcerver M T, Matías-Guiu J
Sección de Neurología, Hospital Universitario de San Juan, Alicante.
Rev Neurol. 1995 Jan-Feb;23(119):39-42.
We have carried out a survey among professional general practitioners in our province with the aim of getting to know their opinion concerning their own training in Neurology. The survey included questions about the adequacy of training, the nature of any deficiency therein (be it theoretical and/or practical) and ability to analyse and attend a neurological patient. The percentage of replies was 78% out of a total of 196 surveys. 78.8% of those questioned consider that their neurological training has not been sufficient either for clinical or general practice; while 43.8% believe that this insufficiency is due to a lack of practical training, 1.8% think the fault lies in a lack of theoretical training, and 54.32% consider that it is due to a lack of both practical and theorectical training. 61.2% of those questioned claim to have difficulties with neurological explorations, and 55.6% claim they have greater difficulties attending a neurological patient than other patients classified within other internal medical specialties. 76% consider that it is either partially or totally false to claim that these difficulties are unimportant due to the lack of treatment for neurological illnesses, although 69.4% consider it to be partially or totally true that they will never be able to achieve diagnosis of a neurological patient due to a lack of the required complementary investigations. 43.9% consider that continued training in Neurology is not useful because it is a repetition of training received at university. As a consequence, there is an imbalance between neurological training and the need to attend the patient at the level of general practice, which should be set right by making the theoretical training given during graduation more suitable, and by increasing and improving practical credits.
