Abstract
General internal medicine (GIM) training, usually as part of a dual accreditation programme, is increasingly challenging to deliver as a result of increased numbers of acute admissions, changes to consultant input into medical 'on call' and the reduction in the numbers of units taking unselected medical patients. GIM has become synonymous with acute medical take, reducing the scope of programmes to deliver a true general medical experience. The role of the 'medical registrar' is reported to be increasingly unpopular with trainees. Differing models of the delivery of training are in place. We have carried out a two-stage questionnaire in order to determine the views of both trainees and trainers on different models of training and their deliverability. The first stage defined the key areas of concern for trainees and the second focused on these areas and the ability of local education providers to deliver an expanded GIM programme. Our data suggest that trainees would value a face-to-face annual review of competence progression (ARCP) for GIM, separate from their specialty ARCP, and would support more structured blocks of GIM training in order to allow later specialty-focused training. However, -significant concerns were raised about the ability of many units to deliver such training beyond the acute medical 'take'.