MAJOR ISSUES IN GERIATRICS OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS

Abstract

We congratulate Drs. Morley and Solomon on their excellent review entitled “Major Issues in Geriatrics over the Last Five Years.”1 It provided not only an excellent review, but also suggested areas in which further work is needed. However, the authors made a glaring error of omission. They stated that “the development by the American Boards of Internal Medicine of a certificate of added qualification in geriatric medicine represents a major advance in the recognition of the role of the geriatrician.” Their statement tells only half the story. What the authors omitted was the fact that 2 boards were involved in the process: the American Boards of Family Practice and Internal Medicine. Both Boards worked together to develop joint requirements for added qualification in geriatric medicine and fellowship training programs. The development of the exam for added qualifications was also a joint project by the 2 boards. This historic cooperation guarantees that family physicians and internists will have identical fellowship training requirements and will take the same certifying exam. The 2 Boards also stipulated that to remain certified in geriatric medicine, physicians must remain certified in their respective specialties. The importance and significance of the cooperation of both Boards should not be dismissed. The authors go on to imply that the time needed to train in geriatrics may differ between the specialties. “At least in the case of the internist, this is insufficient time to acquire the nuances of geriatric care.” Statements of this sort threaten the continued spirit of cooperation between the specialties of family medicine and internal medicine. The continued cooperation between family medicine and internal medicine is essential to the continued survival of geriatrics as a specialty. In many teaching institutions, the teaching of geriatrics is a joint venture between family medicine and internal medicine because of the difficulty in finding sufficient numbers of academic geriatricians. This alliance has been beneficial to both groups.