IV. SUMMARY REPORTS OF ROUND TABLES WITH PERTINENT DISCUSSIONS
Authors: Smith Richard T. 
Published: December 2021

1. The value of research to a pediatric residency training program rests more in the environment it creates than in relation to any direct participation of the resident in individual projects. Active, high-quality research programs, regardless of their subject matter, create ferment, a spirit of inquiry, rigor of criticism, and an emphasis on selfreliance in seeking answers and evaluating data. This atmosphere engenders a scholarly approach to clinical problem-solving and fosters continuing self-education. The developing pediatrician in such an environment also has the opportunity to examine realistically research methods, to assay the kind of people involved in research, and to learn the limitations inherent in clinical as well as laboratory investigation. Through these experiences he builds a frame of reference for evaluating research results independently later in his career, in whatever direction he differentiates.
2. The emphasis on research in pediatric training centers during recent years has not increased the proportion of residents entering full-time research. Available data indicate a slight drop in the per cent entering academic careers although the absolute number is increasing.
3. A major discrepancy exists between approved pediatric programs in university centers in their capacity to provide a research background to the resident training environment. For example, 43% of university-associated pediatric resident programs have less than ten research projects of any kind; 25% have less than four and a number have none at all. Although comparable data are not available, affiliated programs are undoubtedly less able to marshal these resources.
This Round Table interprets these findings, together with other evidence, as indicative of a profound need to augment the quality of existing residency programs, both affiliated and non-affiliated, as a first order of business of American pediatrics.
4. Among the possible factors which appear to affect adversely the quality of residency training identified by the group are:
a) Absence of a formal mechanism for feedback from the certifying group—The American Board of Pediatrics—to the training programs themselves—with respect to the performance of their own trainees. In addition, no data are available on the fate or progress of those who finish residency training and are never certified, and on other pertinent aspects of pediatric training.
b) Inadequate communication and ineffective coordination between the certifying group—The American Board of Pediatrics—and the accrediting group—The Joint Council on Residency Training of the A.M.A.—has resulted from their independent goals and leadership, despite joint stewardship.
c) The criteria for accreditation have appeared to be more centered upon service elements of residency programs such as number of outpatients visits, number of operations, and variety of diagnoses, than upon the educational elements.
d) Criteria for accreditation include no specific emphasis on the importance of ongoing research as an element of the optimal training environment.