This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (4)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Simons Lessell, MD

Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114(8):1002-1004.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

IN THE UNITED STATES, over 400 men and women annually embark on ophthalmic careers by enrolling in a residency program. They choose their programs by reputation and location, using information gleaned from visits, brochures, interviews, and word-of-mouth. All of this notwithstanding, they proceed on the tacit assumption that if the program is accredited, it will prepare them for the practice of ophthalmology and help to satisfy the certification requirements set by the American Board of Ophthalmology. Accreditation is the responsibility of the Residency Review Committee (RRC) for Ophthalmology, a panel whose goals, procedures, and practices have at various times been described in this and other journals.^1-3 Despite that, misconceptions about the committee's agenda and methods seem to abound. Having served (until last year) as a member of the committee for 6 years, I wish to offer a personal perspective on its composition, methods, goals, and responsibilities and identify some . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Boston, Mass

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?