This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chesney, R. W.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chesney, R. W.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Miscellaneous

PEDIATRICS Vol. 108 No. 6 December 2001, pp. 1392-1393

The FOPE II Commentary

To the Editor—

In a recent issue of Pediatrics, a subspecialty task force of the AAP offered a commentary about the Future of Pediatric Education II (FOPE II) document with regard to pediatric subspecialists. We concur with this committee that organized pediatrics should be concerned with the appropriate training of subspecialty educators, clinicians, and researchers. As recommended in the FOPE II report, there should be an ongoing process for assessing the manner in which subspecialty fellows are trained. We also strongly believe that innovative approaches are necessary for the appropriate methods to train these fellows so that they can achieve clinical skills, teaching techniques, and research training leading to subboard certification. It is noteworthy that 2 members of the FOPE II Task Force have given major addresses at annual Pediatric Academic Society meetings concerning the need for innovation in this process. Both Dr James Stockman, in his 1999 St Geme Award Address, and Dr Thomas . . . [Full Text of this Article]