AVIS AU I4INISE DE L’ EDUCATIŒJ
SUR ‘EVMUATION rDES NOUVEAUX PRoeRAM
MES EN.1975/1976.
(Prnière tranche)
r r’
J])]))36 00 0(4 012
j
AVIS AU MINISTRE DE L’ EDUCATIŒ
SUR L’ EVMUATION rDES NOUVEAUX PROGPAW
MES EN 1975/1976.
(Prnière tranche)
Québec, le 20 décTre 1974.
pJ A&
tEjV: V
‘b
S’
I
Le Conseil des universités a approuvé 1drsdesa’Euante—huftième
(8e) séance, kenue à Montréal le 12 décem1re 1974, deux projets de ou
veaux prograniines Il présente ci—après au ministre de 1’Edt,ication son
avjs”sur’ces deux programmes. On t’roivra’dans ‘1e es’ ‘des rensi—
gnements plus complets sur les deux programmes approuvés.t
tt
t f‘V
V •‘ —- VjS_S
— .
.‘: •-.
S V ‘ V
V
J
/ t
f’!
1. PH.D. IN PSYCHOLOGY (Université Concordia)
Le Conseil des universités recommande au ministre de 1’Education
d’approuver le projet de programme de troisiàme cycle en psychologie
de l’Université Concordia.
2. RESIDENCY TRAINING PROGRAN IN FANILY MEDICINE (Université NcGill)
Le Conseil des universités recommande au ministre de 1’Education
d’approuver le programme de résidence en médecine familiale de l’Uni
versité McGill.
Comme pour tous les programmes approuvés à ce stade de l’opération
d’évaluation des nouveaux programmes, le Conseil souligne que les titres et
mentions de ces programmes devront être conformes aux principes contenus
dans un rapport à être prochainement soumis au ministre de l’Education, et
traitant de la nomenclature des dipl6mes.
Par ailleurs, le Conseil remarque que le financement particulier de ces
deux programmes n’est pas encore garanti et qu’il dépendra de l’ampleur d’une
enveloppe qui serait réservée aux nouveaux programmes, d’unè part, et de la
fl priorité accordée à ces projets par rapport aux autres programmes approuvés,V
V
.V;.;’V‘,
“.‘: d”auire prt. .V.t‘
:‘‘- ‘ ‘‘‘ ,• V,.
‘• V‘“‘
‘- ‘.‘‘. ,‘V •‘,
— n Itf t
‘ : I
I
l, t
— S - C “ L
1
ANNE)Œ I
PH.D. IN PSYCHOLOGY
(Université Concordia)
• ,.•
— TABLE DES iTIERES — V
PAGESV
Identification du programme 4
Avis du Comité conjoint des programmes 5
Avis du Comité d’évaluation 6
Liste des experts consultés 7
Sommaire du programme 8—9
Objectifs du programme 10—16
Situation du programme dans le réseau universitaire 16—18
Les Orientations de l’Enseignement supérieur dansles années ‘70 — Recommandations 18.1 et 18.2 duCahier III 19
Avis de monsieur Pierre CAZALIS, secrétaire du Conseil
des universités sur les recommandations 18.1 et 18.2 20
Commentaires additionnels de la C.P.P.Q. sur le programme de troisième cycle en psychologie à l’Université Sir George Williams 21—23
4.
EXTRAIT DU DOSSIER DE PRESENTATION
1. Identification
1.1 ‘Titie of programme: Doctor of Phulosophy
1.2 Degree and field: Ph.D. in Psychology
1.3 Administrative Unit: Department of PsychologyFaculty of ArtsSir Ceorge Williams UniversityMontreal, Quebec
5.
AVIS DU COMITE CONJOINT DES PROGRAMMES
(53e séance, 25 octobre 1974)
CONSIDERANT les avis favorables des experts,
CONSIDERANT l’avis de qualité émis par le sous—comité d’évaluationde la Conférence des recteurs et principaux des universités duQuébec, -
CONSIDERANT l’avis favorable de la Corporation des psychologuesdu Québe.c,
CONSIDERANT l’interprétation que l’on peut donner à l’avis dusecrétaire du Conseil des universités sur les recommandations18.1 et 18.2 du Cahier III du Conseil sur “Les Orientations del’Enseignement supérieur dans les années ‘70”.
CONSIDERANT l’opportunité de ce programme reconnue par la Corporation des Psychologues du Québec et les ex.perts consultés.
Le Comité conjoint des programmes recommande au Conseil desuniversités d’approuver le programme de “Ph.D. in Psychology”de l’Université Sir Geoge Williams.
Québec, le 7 novembre 1974.
6.
AVIS DU COMITE D’EVALUATION
(10 septembre 1974)
DOCTORAT EN PSYCHOLOGIE — (Université Sir George Williams)
ATTENDU l’avis unanime des cinq experts consultés, relatif àla qualité du projet de programme de Doctorat enpsychologie proposé par l’Université Sir Ceorge Williams,
IL EST RESOLU après l’étude du programme et des rapports des
experts, que le Comité d’évaluation de la Conférencedes recteurs et des principaux des universités duQuébec fasse au Comité des programmes du Conseil desuniversités la recommandation suivante:
ACCEPTATION
REMARQUES:
1. Compte tenu du nombre “d’area tutorials” proposédans le cadre de ce projet de programme, il semblerait judicieux d’assurer un développement progressif à ceux—ci, et d’inviter l’université SirGeorge Williams à exercer une surveillance à cetégard.
2. Compte tenu de la volonté d’insertion sociale dece programme et afin d’utiliser les ressourcesdu milieu francophone en psychologie, notammentdans le cadre des “area tutorials”, le Comitéd’évaluation est d’avis qu’une connaissance suffisante de la langue française doit être exigéede la part des candidats au programme. Il est deplus à noter que l’Ordre des professions exigeradorénavant la connaissance de la langue françaisepour pratiquer une profession au Québec.
ADOPTE A L’UNANIMITE
Québec, le 7 novembre 1974.
‘t
7.
EXPERTS CONSULTES
Ph.D. in Psychology(Université Sir Ceorge Williams)
Dr. David BELANCERDépartement de PsychologieUniversité de MontréalCase postale 6128Montréal (QUEBEC) TEL.: 343—6503
Dr. Robert CIBBONSAddiction Studies UnitKingston’Psychiatric HospitalKingston (ONTARIO) TEL.: 613—546—4543
Dr. Yves ST-ARNAUDDirecteurDépartement de PsychologieUniversité de SherbrookeCité universitaireSherbrooke, (QUEBEC) TEL.: 8x9—565—4586
Dr. Arthur SULLIVANDepartment of PsychologyMemorial UniversitySt. John’s (NEWFOUNDLAND)
Dr. Claude VERNETTEDirecteurDépartement de PsychologieUniversité du Québec à MontréalCase postale 8888Montréal (QUEBEC) TEL.: 876—5434
r
ECT1ON DES COMMUNICA11CNSQuébec, le 7 novembre 1974. WirûtèrederÉducation
1035, de la Chewotière, leCéev, GIH 5A5
L
Programme de Ph.D. en Psychologie
Sommaire(extrait du dossier de présentation)
Le programme de doctorat ici proposé offre des caractér—
istiquesde base qui, tout en respectant l’empirisme fondamental de
cette discipline, permettent une formation centrée à la fois sur la
recherche de base selon des concepts traditionnels, et sur la recherche
orientée ou appliquée’à des problèmes du milieu. Un des éléments
pédagogiques essentiels de ce programme, est l’organisation des connaiss
ances autour de problèmes tels que la réhabilitation de la jeunesse,
la toxicomanie, la modification du comportement ainsi qu’une orientation
vers les techniques de la recherche susceptibles de résoudre de tels
problèmes. De cette manière ce programme se différencie des programmes
à orientation traditionnelle dont la recherche se situe dans le cadre
de domaines nettement circonscrits tels que l’apprentissage, la percep
tion, la personnalité et la psychologie sociale.
Le département responsable de ce projet fonctionne déjà
au niveau de deuxième cycle, dans les domaines de la psychologIe expér
imentale et de la psychologie’appliquée. Il s’agit.d’un département
qui possède déjà des ressources importantes attribuées à la recherche et
à la formation appliquée dans les domaines mentionnés précédemment.
Avec les ressources additionnelles demandées, le département devrait
être en mesure d’atteindre les buts que le programme s’est donnés.
L’on prévoit une implantation progressive du programme à
partir de septembre 1974. Les étudiants seront choisis pour travailler
8.
9.
dans des domaines en plein développement et le plus susceptibles
d’appuyer l’étudiant et son programme. Nous sommes convaincus que
les ressources déjà existantes seront utilisées au mieux par l’im
plantation de ce programme d’études qui contribuera d’une manière
importante et efficace à la formation de psychologues dans la Pro
vince de Québec.
10.
2. Airas of the programme
2.1 Academic aims
The present proposai for a Ph.D. in Psychology arises out
of a ten—year period of development of the Psychology Department. Dur—
ing this time, the department lias evolved solid undergraduate and grad—
uate programmes and assembled a gioup of productive researchers and
ii active practitioners.
It is in the context of these developments (to be described
in greater detail under Existing Resources) that we propose a Ph.D.
programme which emphasizes three main academic objectives:
1. A programme,which,inkeeping with Psychology’s emphasis on empir—
ical knowledge, will provide training in both basic or pure” research,
[I as it lias been traditionally conceptualized, and in practically—
oriented or “applied” research on community problems;
2. A programme which includes internships in relevant community, hos—
pital, and other institutions for the purpose of providing students
with prctica1 experience in community settings;
E 3. And, finally a programme oriented towards social problems (such
as youth habilitation, drug addiction, behavior modification) and
towards researh techniques appropriate to solving sucli problems, as
distinct from the traditional emphasis on research within discrete
content areas, such as, learning, motivation, perception, cognition,
[1 personality, social, abnormal, etc.
We feel that the kind of training we intend to offer will
Ii
U’l.
equip individuals for careers in cominunity programmes and research
projects and in government sponsored problem—oriented research.
The considerationswhich have led to the formulation of
r the specific academic aims of the propoed Ph.D. programme
to a large degree with statements contained in a recent report sub—
- mitted to the Science Council by the Canadian Psychological Associa—
tion, entitled The Future of Canadian Psychology (April, 1971). In
this report there was a consensus that current doctoral programmes,
which evolved to meet the expressed needs of the 1960’s for more uni—
O. versity teachers and “front—une practitioners” (i.e., clinical psy—
chologists performing testing, evaluation and psychotherapy with
O patients), will not aiways provide the most appropriate training for
Ph.D. psychologists for the 1970’s.
[j While it can be expected of our programme, as well as of
other Ph.D. programmes, that a certain percentage of its graduates will
5e employed ultimately in a university either on a full or haif posi—
[1 tion bas±s, the present proposal accepts the generally expressed
ing of the contributors to the Science Council Report that Ph.D. psy—
chologists need to 5e trained ta work in non—university settings and to
fulfili the role of what Davidson terms the “researcher—consultant”
(Davidson, P. Canadian Psychologist, 1970, 11, 101—127). As Davidson
says “the role of the psychologist of the future in clinical settings is
going to be much less that of a front—une worker and much more a second—
or even third—line manager The psychologist should 5e rnuch more
s.-
12.
involved in evaluation of programmes rather than evaluation of
single patients. He should also be more concerned with initiating
new programmes or modifying existing programmes for the agency
rather than treating single patients (Science Council Report,
pp. 164—165).
Similar conclusions were reached by Bowman in the same
report, in which she set out a “job desciption” for the Ph.D. in
Psychology working in a non—university setting (Science Council Re
port, pp. 244—245). “In most clinical settings I consider it quite
wasteful for the Ph.D. to do routine testing, or carry on psychotherapy
of cases. I think the Ph.D. should be involved in:
A. Active participation in the broader operation of the institution,
e.g., policy—making, long—term planning, inter—disciplinary pro
grammes or research planning.
B. Supervision of the “front—une” workers, i.e., Masters level psy—
chologists, social workers, programme workers, child care workers
or whatever special personnel participate in the particular clin—
ical settings, treatment or research programmes.
C. Education of selected publics re the availability of services,
maintenance of community contacts so as to receive feedback con—
cerning the usefulness of the programme and initiation of possible
cooperation with other institutions.
D. Taking the initiative in establishing on—going evaluation of the
clinical services offered, setting up appropriate studies to deter—
13.
L] mine success of outcome, efficiency cf operations, kind cf varia—
- bles affecting programme operation.
E. Providing careful supervision to clinical internes in the setting.”
LI The formulations cf both Davidson and Bowman implicitly
accept that the non—university psychologist is at present almost inevit—
ably a researcher andlor clinician working in a hospital setting. There
is, however, evidence in both the United States and Canada that the med—
ical—hospitai approach is changing (although, again, as with the univer—
sity as an employer of psychologists, it is probably true that hospitals
fl• - will continue to utilize the services of psychologists). As an extension
of existing psychological services, there is the beginning of an orienta—
U tion towards programmes at a community level rather than at a clinic, or
— hospital level. As yet, no Canadian psychology department bas set up a
- formai community psychology programme; work has begun in this direction
in the United States. As the Science Council Report points out feu Can—
adian psychologists have received specific training in action research
or community, mission—orientd work. Nonetheless, Canadian psychologists
indicated a considerable range cf such interests when polled by the
Science Council compilers. A brief listing cf such activities currently
being carried eut within present structures included: “various kinds cf
projects in disadvantaged areas, drug studies, studies cf the factors
affecting community morale, problems cf biculturalism and biiingualism,
trainingprogrammes for policeofficers uho will be engaged in work with
14.
families and chiidren, the development of “early warning systems” to
aid disturbed undergraduate students, the effect of rchitectura1 de
sign on the well—being of residents of public housing, the problems
of native people and various projects in Canada’s Far North.” (Science
Council Report, p. 167).
Although this trend towards community problem—solving ac—
tivity bas begun already in Canada, the outcomes of such programmes
have not aiways been happy ones. “. . . .The federal ministries have been
perhaps too willing to put large sums of money into “social—action re—
search” where the funds have been justified too much on the basis of the
social relevance of the problem and too littie on the strengths of the
research design to tackle these problems. .. .Consequently, the resuits too
often have been to produce trivial or useless answers to important ques
tions because of bad research methodology and inadequate technology.”
(Science Council Report, p. 168). For this reason, our emphasis would be
upon training graduate students to become both expert in the use of trad—
itional research techniques n psychology and able to apply such tech
niques to problem—solving, socially—oriented areas and problems.
2.2 Instructional aims
The instructional aims follow from the academic aims of the
programme as outlined. The student would acquire expertise in research
methods from the carrying mit of an empirical thesis and from attending
seminars on research problem areas. Every attempt will be made to acquaint
students with the kind of problems and the methodology requïred to carry
15.
out theory—oriented or basic experimental research, problem—oriented
or basic applied research (defined as any study aimed at finding a
“cause” of a particular “problem”, e.g., neurosis, reading difficul—
ties, drug addiction), solution—oriented or applied technological re—
search (defined as studies aimed at finding methods of treatment of
particular problems) and research to evaluate technological applica—
O tions (defined as studies which evaluate feasibility,
and possible “side effects” of applying some form of.technology, e.g.,
operant conditioning of brain waves, to the solution of some social
fl problem). Course work and internship experiences (the latter often
overlapping with the students’ thesis topic and/or some aspects of the
research seminar) would be employed to develop and train professional
and problem—solving skills. Teaching opportunities in the form of
teaching assistantships will be made. available to those students wish—
ingto develop skill in this area. Throughbut the programme, we would
seek to emphasize individualized instructional techniques.
2.3 Soci—economic aims
The last few years have witnessed a period of economic re—
cession in the United States and Canada. In spite of this, the Science
Council Report compilers’ overali impression of the job market is favor
able and optimistic (pp. 264—275).
fa) There are signs of overproduction of Ph.D.’s in some areas of psy—
chology. These are mainly in the traditional theory—oriented areas
16.
where there is some reason to believe that a narrow specializa—
tion of training lias occurred in the process oftraining psychol—
ogists for the needs of the 1960’s; in particular for university
teaching and research.
(b) There is considerable evidence that positions are going unfilled
in what have traditionally been called applied areas — wliat we
have called community—oriented and problem—solving areas.
(c) There is also evidence that some positions in these areas are being
f illed by minimally trained and even untrained workers.
(d) Overali the Science Council Report suggests that jobs will continue
to open up for psychologists in a variety of community settings as
they have been over the last ten years despite economic recession.
The report suggests that further prolonged economic recession might
change this forecast.
3. Place of the programme in the university system
3.1 Current situation in the field in Quebec
The programme as conceived appears unique in Quebec in that
the organization of knowledge is to be around “areas” or “problems”,
e.g., youth habiliation, addiction, behavior modification, rather than divided
into the more traditional divisions of the discipline into, e.g., learn—
ing, perception, personality, social psychology.
Each problem area would have at least twa faculty members
associated with it; one to supervise basic research, and one to super—
[
vise or to co—ordinate an internship. These staff would then fona
a group with their students. Each group would then involve students
and staff interested in a given problem area at both the level of
community service and the level of basic research. Each group would
have an active interaction between ail students interested in the
problem area, regardiess of the applied—experimental preference of the
student.
3.2 Current situation in the fieid in North Ltunerica and Europe
In both North America and Europe research centers and in—
stitutes exist devoted to the study of particular sets of psycliological
probiems [chiid development (Brown), brain research (Rochester), human
abilities (Memorial), survey research institute (Michigan) ] . These
are usually independent or are single units within larger traditional
departments. We know of no traditionai department with a large under—
graduate base which has deliberately set about to organize graduate
study as we are suggesting.
4. Enroilmant forecast
Year Estimate of the number of students Estimated Totalto be admitted into ist year in Program
1974—75 8—9 8— 9
1975—76 4 — 5 12 — 14
1976—77 4 — 5 12 — 14
1977—78 6 — 7 16 — 20
1978—79 8 — 9 16 — 20
18.
The students entering such a programme will probably
corne initially from the Montreal area and some will corne from the
Masters Programmes in Psychology at Sir George Williams. There is
in Montreal a group of captive students hoping to be able to continue
their studies in .the near future. Over—enroliment and admission re
strictions in other Montreal universities have made it impossib1e
for many of these students to continue. As well, the other universi—
ties, knowing that some of these potential students are captive and
knowing that the number of university positions is limited, have been
reluctant to educate them for university careers. We feel that the kind
of training we intend to offer will equip such individuals to prepare
for careers outside the university in community clinics and projects and.
in government sponsored problem and solution oriented research. Even—
tually, it is expected that such a programme will attract talent from out—
side both city and the province.
[rin
îI — . . .
‘ : •:. : ..
19.
LES ORIENTATIONS DE L’ENSEIGNEMENT SUFERIEURDANS LES ANNEES ‘70.
RECOMMANDATIONS 18.1 et 18.2 DU CAHIER III
RECOMMANDATION 18.1
C a) QUE, quelles que. soient les modalités de l’intégration
f Sir George—Loyola, et afin de répondre aux besoins de
( la communauté anglophone dans le respect de la complé—
( mentarité des établissements, Sir Ceorge Williams con—
f serve ses orientations actuelles
f( d’établissement de premier cycle surtout,
f( . aux activités largement ouvertes aux c1ientles
à temps partiel;
Cf b) QUE, selon les besoins, Sir George Williams maintienne
( ou organise des enseignements de deuxiàme.cycle, en
f complémentarité avec l’Université .McGill et
(( QUE ces activités soient également ouvertes aux clien—
( tèles à temps partiel.
RECOMMANDATION 18.2
( QUE ne soient acceptées à Sir George Williams que les
C activités de niveau gradué:
Cf . ne compromettant pas les orientations recommandées
( en 18.1;
CC . reposant sur un corps professoral de qualité éprouvée
( et sur des activités de recherche suffisantes.
C
( . choisies de telle sorte qu’elles satisfassent au
C principe de complémentarité avec l’Université McGill
C posé ci—avant.
Québec, le 7 novembre 1974.
. .L.
t.\
— :oSiJL t)tSNlV1:1SI1 l:S
1 1101 ‘L L •‘tJIII Il.
suroy OuCuCc ,o
17420.
Monsieur Binise Ditcy
Sec:tcitirc
Cou it tles prornmmes
270f), bou I c•vi il Liu rie r
QuibuC, CIA 2W)
Monsieur le Secrraire,
flnns l’esprit des reçomin;inda t ions- 1 6. 1 e t 1.8. 2 du
Cahier Tu dit Raj)pt)tL dii Conseil sut les oHecti fs de l’enseigne—
iilcHit SuptticLit ;lu t)uCI,ec Ct 2es ori,.nt)LioL1s LLt5 Ctnl)liSSCiilCllCS,
1 ‘ Univers t L Si r Ceo rge Wi. 11. tflins
1 dol t concentrer ses efforts sur fe premier cycle,
et part Cculireinent les ci ieiicles îi temps partiel;
2— petit organiser tJesactivi Cs de tleuxiiie cycle
tians les cloiiui i. nes qui Sou L retux o ri en t(i Lions
nuljelurt2s atti,cl lL’S (1) il, atiilli iii st:rac[on) ou dans
t) I it I (j il i. S il tmi ne s Pci fl LI aine n La ii p t) U r 1 e 591 e Is 1 ‘ Uni —
Ve1 1C NeCi)]. lIC petit SzIt l5ll)i’2 entièrement aux
besoins cIe cli ent?hes q1II)t1CO [ses;
3— ne peut s’engager qu’a titre très exceptionnel dans
Je tro.isinue cycle.
I.e Conseil des universi t(s pub] i cm au cours de
].971/75 un rnp))OtL l’eCapL! sur les sui tus nu (illLii IL) iii’ a
b1i un fvritr 1071 sur les grandes orluntatuitis - •.sv’.
La (jUCSCt(,)l1 StItlleV(C 1It. 1t2 Coiiui CL tics j)I))lluuiIIIe; y SeI.i I H I
p] us de di Lai s ; en aL Lendan t rOi te i t:ude , le Cotiil Cé des roj;t.itiiuuie
duvrni C flC)tiuua]LIuICIlt I ntctptter les textes du Conseil des universités
flVèC beaucoup du prudence
.1’ espère que ces quelques prei si ons seront de nature
clnirer 1 vs r fi uxions du Cuini tâ des jircugraiuiuuius
monts les meilleurs.Je VOUS assure, Monsieur le Secrâtaire, de mes senti—
Le Secr LJLi e
Pi erre C(tza
CIL DES
L’Iu\’Z15ITES
quc’uec le 6 juin 1974.
21.
Comme.yitaULe addLLonneL de. LaLe p)Log)Lamrne de. t’ioLLrne eyc%e en -
pyetioLogLe. à L’UnLve.nLt SL. Geoftge. W.iLtLarnVS
Compme.ntcuiL de piwg!camme
Varus cc Lett’ce du 4 avtv-e.c 1974, Le. ConiL-t conjoint de
pwg)tammei .ouve La qaeU.on de La compLrne.rutcvtLtOE pognamrne
de. o’cmcutLon en p toLogLe. e.iit’ce. Les unLve. MeG-UI et S-lit
Geoicge. WLU&m.
La CoponatLon de pyhoLogue e,t (;e.uce.e. de. con ate. que.
Le. ConeL de. UnLvezt pouIe. Le.-.s pottpcovus qa’eUe. cc toujowus
e.ue<s en ce qwL ionce’rne La comp rnevutcvUJ deé poçj’canime de. oItniatLon
en pjchoLoge. ?a’c. cont’ce., La Cotpo-’uttLon deÀs pfdioLogue4 CL
con dJten ce. plLobUnie. ouI L’angLe. de. L’evuse.rnbLe. de. La. pchoLog.Le.
qubco-Le. e-t non .6eu-Lcme.nt, eIon Le4 d tLnctLorus LLngwttLqLte2S et
ce-ea potvz. LeVs rcaLovus wLvan-te-V;
- on ‘ce.-t’Louva une. pIwpo)tton app’cc7LctbLe U’ OE-tud.Lavi-ti angLopkone davus.L.es dpa.’ute.mentô de. p ctLoLog)Le. de. Langue. tançctLe e-t uLce.-veusa;
- p Leu’us pychoLogue4 de. Langue angLaLe. ende.nt e.ecLLve.me.nt de
4e.)w-Lce6 po LonneLs à La popuLaLon tjnaneopttone. e-t L’-Lnve.n4e e,.s-t
ga-e.e.men-t v’taLe.;
- La Lo-L 250 (code. de po5e-&L6n) acce.ntue.fla davantage. La. poLyvaLence
Z-&iguLtLqcte. de-ô pno sonne.Li du QuL)ec.
Aws.L, et-ee. e.C onc_tLon de. L’e.yusernbLe. de. La pôychoLogLe.qubco6e. que. La Copo’tatLon de-s p5ychoLogueJ. eee-tccct e.ii 1972 une.
tude. p’to.spe.e-tLve. de. contLngenteme.n.t.
MaLg’cOE Le, Lmpe-’te.cLLorus Lnh&te.n;te. à ce. ge.n’t.e. d’tude.4, LLe-ô-t poiLbLe. de. dgage.’L de. L’examen dc tabLe.aux qwL 1ÇLgtvteivt en an
nexe. ce-’t..ta-Lne-ô eonc usoiv5 pe. Lnen-te-ô à not)Le pflopoS.
?‘ce.ne.me.n.-t, Le. nomb’ce. de doe-toiw.,tô en pIychoLogLe communau
.taL’Le. ou o’&Len.te. ve..’us de-ô be-ôo)us pLwô mm!dLat..ô de La ôoc,Lt ne.
con’.StLtuen-t qu’une pflopofli.on rna)tg-LiiaLe .ôcVt.tocLt cOmpaa-tLVCmCn.t aux
dornaLne-ô de La pôyc!toLogLe. cLLivLque. et de Lcc p.ôycttoLog-Le e.xp&tme.n-taLe..
IL conv-eri.t d’ajou-Wc que ce-tte d)-ôp..’topontLon eôt eneone. pLcus g.’zande.
4-L L’on corus-Ld&ce que. Le-é op-Uonh ‘p.sychoLog-Le. £ndwt’zLe-Ue., p4yehoLo9Le
4oc,LaLe e-t p4ycho.LogLe. de. L’ducatLon” 4on-t en Jta.Ut appcve.ntOEeô à La
p.ô ychoLog-Le. Ço ndame.n-taLe ou e.xpLmentaLe..
.1.
22.
.1..
Ve.rne.ne.;it, - riomb-’te. de. doc_tonii.t p’Lvu ne. epe.rite.n-te1on £e. anne que. de J2 à J6 du iomb-’ce. d’ ud-Lant an pzyctwogLe.Hotori à e.e. ‘uje-t que cc pJwpontLon cLctue.Ue dei me.rnb)ce.4 de Za Co)tpofl.atLon ctu,L d e.r-inavt-t un d-LpPJrne. de. coLs-Lrne e.yc-Pe. e2»t de 2E%, ce qu.-L
L9n-LiLe., -L - donne de £itude. de eonUn9e.nte.nen-t ont exacta-s,que a pIca pofltLon de. p ehooue. au Q.ubec d-te.nan-t un doctonat Lita
en dico-ccnL
En 1ÇaLt, aucow’z4 de. c,Lnq (5) de. L’te ann!e(1968 à 1973),UnvenLt Mc.GLU a dce’ui 66 doetoicctts en pehotoLe. Va ce
nornbne. 25 .euIemej’zt ont en p choeo-Le cLLnLque. e-t ie.ctee.me.n-t 10 dece d_ten-tewt-s d’ un doctoitat e son-t engagS dan -a pnxtLque p’coÇe-s‘sonne-Ue e-t, pcvc eovuqcte.vc.t, on-t joLnt e- nxtn de. ta Co’cpo’uttLon.?aic aLUewù, 4seJon no o’unatLon, une. p’copoflUon app c,Lccbî_e de.
en pyctiotoge à MeGLU exe.’ccen--t m Ln-tenan-t aux Eta-t---Un-Lou dan te autice- pIcovnce, ce. quL contLtue. une -‘caLson addL-t-Lonne-Ue. pou’c consJd&taic ta. compttiie.ntaU au ptan de. £‘e.kt6embte de.4uve’tLt e-t non à ce.Lc-L de% ccv eLt angtophovze.
1cvc aLUe.un., t’t1n-LvejuLt de. Movi-t’ca.-€. a m-L- 71 ckptme de.t’coLLme cyea (Ph.V. a-t V. ?s.) de. 1968 à 1973. I e,s-t n-tce,avz-tde compcuceic ce donne- ccu nornb-’te. de cLLptm en psyctco-eoLe de. cet-teuvc-Lve.-’uLt qu on-t -t adm à ta. C.?.P.Q. du’can-t ca-tte. pcI-Lode, -oLt303.
Le eut awt,ce. dpa’cte.rne.n.t de. p ehoeLog-Le. au Qubec à dceitneJcun doe-toica,t, ‘ioLt ceLctL de. £‘Un-Lve.nLt LavalL pIcvo-t donrtek en moyennequa.t’te (4) doctoicat4 pa-’t ccrnce d’—La-c 1976.
MaJcch du .t’tavaL.
U n’exLite mccPJtecuteweme.nt pci. de. donne pIc€cLei Wc £ema’cch du t’cavaL en p-ychotog,e. Cependan-t, pWLeufl5 me.n-t/ipe-’wie-Ue.nt de. c’wL’ce que te pe.iupe.a-tLva- à ce-t ga’cd )on,t pttt-t6texce.Ilen-te.4 du moLn pow’c te-i e-Lviq (5) cwne à ve.ivUc.
.1..
23.
.1..
Pem-Lee.mevit, comme £e deu,’ d’uvt cUp-e6me. de. dewcLme
cycle en p’yd1o!o9-Le np)toccvent 9u’tC de d LcuUOE a e. tJtouue’
de £.‘empe.o-L, l est £ogque. de pen-eIc que ceux qwL ob.tLe.nd’wn-t £ecu.
doclo’uut de SUt. Ge.one WLU.Lam’ ou d’aLUeu’t4 poun’tovit bnc,Le.r.
d’une 4LùLcLtLon aus-<. cwonabîe, d’ctwan pu,ô que £e. MLte de-s
aaL’ce4 ocaLe vLent de ‘cctju4.te’t de ctçon appncc’LbLe Le &a,Uce
de p.sychoLogue,. Ve pLw, pLuiiLeani hô’pLtcwx che’cchen -.SaY1 succs
depwL quclque anvie, a enaje’t de penonne qwL d&Lennen de
pntence. un doc o’uui en ychoLoLe.
VeuLrmernent, La p’wpo’zUon de. p.syhoLogue4 quL ont un
doc_tonnt en piiychoLog.Le dLLnue an- cee depwt quae (4) ou
clnq (5) ani. O’c, jwqu’à mL’vtenant, Le mcutch du ,‘tava,U. a
au moLn..s de. 20% c 25% de doc.te.Lv1. en ptychoLo g-Le aLon.ô que. eiLon
pvL&.Lov, ce.te pWpofltLon pCe)za e.nvUton 10%.
TnoLmernent, Le !vtLvLtJte. de a aiite>s ocLae.4 )Le.chejcche
de. pZws en pLu de peonne qwL .-e)con-t en me ‘te. d’vaLue,’t e-t de.
coon4onnen. Les c(Lve’u pog-’iarnrne de 4oLvu cl d’ac,-tLopi 4oc,La-e.e. m-t de
L’ avan-t davi, Le,5 cen-t’te.s communawtaL’te. Oit, jw5qu’ ma-Ln-te.’7an-t, t,’t
peu de p4ychoLoquei on-t Ço’un<s ccl eÇe-t e-t L% y z towt L-Leu de
citoL’te. que Le p.’to]namnie p’topo pcuc S-Ut Geonge. W-LU-Lccm6 combWca
paLcLitemen-t ce-tte Lacune.
EnLf’t, Le nomb-’te de pychoLogue-s 4pcLaL- dan- de domaLnei
teLs que. “yowth t’iab-LLLta-tLon, dku9 add-LcLLon, behav-Lo’c mocLLfÇLcatLon”
n’et pa4 pnopontLonn aux beio-Lvt-s 4an cee. citoL4an.t de. 4pcaU-
c ce-t !gaicd.
En 4omme, nou4 eJcoyon- que Le plwçjitamme pkopo4, Lo-Ln d’en
t]taLne.n. une duptLccvtLon con-&-tLtue. une. hewceu4c ctLve’c-s-L(-Lca-tLon cl
4 Lne-’iLt d’enibLte, comp-te tcnu de4 beioLn--.s actueLs e-t Çwtun, dan4
La LLgne. de. compLmentcurLt.
?G/j c5-4-74
ANNEXE II
RESIDENCY TRAINING PROCRÀN IN FANILY MEDICINE
Université McCill
• •• • .•. .•
• • • • • •
ITABLE DES MATIERES
Identification du programme
Liste des experts consultés
Avis du Comité conjoint des programmes
Avis du Comité d’évaluation
Résumé du programme
Situation du programme dans le réseau universitairecanadien
PAGES
26
27
28
29—30
31—33
34—37
26.
EXTRAIT DU DOSSIER DE PRESENTATION
1. Identification
1.1 — Titie:
Residency Training Program in Family Medicine
1.2 — Certficate:
McCill Certificate of Residency Training —
Family Medicine -
1.3 — Administrative Unit:
Faculty of MedicineCoordinator of Programs: Associate Dean D. A. Hiliman
Department of Family Nedicine
Residency Training Conmdttee Family Medicine
Dr. J. L. McCallum, Acting Chairman
Miss Margaret HootonDr. E. MonaghanDr. J. PatrickDr. S. PedvisDr. H. Warnes
Family Practice Units
Director, Montreal Ceneral Hospital:
Or. D. M. Marcus
Director, Jewish Ceneral Hospital:
Or. I. Tannenbaum
Director, St. Mary’s Hospital:Or. C. Lapointe
Director, Montreal Children’s Hospital:
Or. N. Steinmetz
27.
EXPERTS CONSULTES
FAMILY MEDICINE PROGRAN (McCill University)
M. Georges DESROSIERSDirecteurDépartement de médecine communautaireUniversité de MontréalCase postale 6128Montréal (QUEBEC)H3C 3J7 TEL.: 343—6140
M. Léonard LANGLOISDépartement de médecine communautaireCentre hospitalier universitaireUniversité de SherbrookeSherbrooke (QUEBEC)J1K 2R1 TEL.: 819—653—5555
M. Donald RICEExecutive DirectorCollege of Family Physicians of Canada1941 Leslie StreetDonMills 405 (ONTARIO) TEL.: 1—416—449—9430
Québec, le 7 novembre 1974.
28.
AVIS DU COMITE CONJOINT DES PROGRAMMES
(53e séance, 25 octobre 1974)
CONSIDERANT les avis favorables des experts consultés,
CONSIDERANT la recommandation favorable émise par le sous—comitéd’évaluation de la Conférence des recteurs et principaux desuniversités du Québec,
CONSIDERANT l’opportunité de ce programme, implanté en 1969.
Il est proposé par le Comité conjoint des programmes que
le Conseil des universités approuve le programme de“Family Medicine” de l’Université McGill
Québec, le 7 novembre 1974. -
29.
AVIS DU COMITE D’EVALUATION
(10 septembre 1974)
MEDECINE FAMILIALE de l’Université McCill
ATTENDU les avis favorables des experts relatifs au projetde programme de Médecine familiale de l’UniversitéMcCill;
ATTENDU l’unanimité des experts au sujet de la nécessité, pourla faculté de médecine, d’engager un directeur de programme avant de lancer ce projet de programme;
ATTENDU la nécessité de doter le directeur du programme de pouvoirssuffisants et de mettre à sa disposition les mécanismes décisionnels adéquats, pour assurer une coordination et uneintégration des initiatives et des activités’ des différentsh6pitaux impliqués dans ce programme;
ATTENDU la nécessité d’accroftre le nombre de prof.esseurs afind’assurer le succàs du programme;
ATTENDU que les h6pitaux participant à ce programme n’entrevoientpas la médecine familiale dans une même optique.
IL EST RESOLU,
après l’étude du projet de programme et des rapports desexperts, que le Comité d’évaluation de la Conférence desrecteurs et des principaux des universités du Québec fasseau Comité des rogrammes du Conseil des universités, larecommandation suivante:
ACCEPTATION CONDITIONNELLE
Les conditions sont les suivantes:
1. Que la Faculté de médecine procàde à l’engagementd’un directeur de programme, avec pleine autorité,avant de lancer le programme.
2. Qu’un comité de coordination soit mis sur pied afind’assurer la coordination entre les différentes composantes chargées de réaliser les objectifs du programme.
3. Qu’un plus grand nombre de professeurs avec un statutapproprié soit affecté au programme.
4. Que, advenant l’acceptation de ce programme, il fasse.lobjet d’une réévaluation un an apràs sa mise sur pied.
30.
REMARQUES:
1. Le Comité d’évaluation s’interroge sur lesort qui a été réservé à la résolutionadoptée par le corps professoral de laFaculté de médecine de l’Université McCÎ11,le 26 juin 1973, et portant sur la créationd’un département de médecine familiale.
2. En accord avec deux des experts consultés,le Comité d’évaluation est d’avis qu’uneconnaissance suffisante de la langue française doit être exigée de la part desmédecins se destinant à la médecine familiale.
ADOPTE A L’UNANIMITE
Québec, le 7 novembre 1974.
V 31.•
V
I
V
V
RESUNE ç;;....
• A PROPOSED NE PROCRAN IN FAMILY MEDICINE V
• MC GILL UNIVERSITY (extrait du dossier de présentation)
Despite admirable achievements in many respects cf medical
training, it is note.îorthy that in recent years the number of medical
graduates of McGill University entering Family Practice in Quebec has
been limited. Althoughthe reasons for this are complex, we believe that
a major contributing factor has been the fact that in the past ue have
had no good training programs in this field. The pattern ofFamily
Practice In large urban centres is, cf course, changing radically, and
the old model of solo private practice is increasinglyunacceptable to
the young graduate. New models, to 5e acceptable, will involve practis—
ing in a group in close integration with other workers in the medical
field with good access to a neighbouring hospital, speciaiist consulta—
tion and laboratory work—up, the fonn cf practice which lias been so
clearly described in the reports cf the Castonguay Commission.
V The Faculty of Medicine cf McGI11 has taken steps te stimulate
the formation cf Fmi1y Practice Units along the unes envisioned by the
Department cf Social Affairs, and has created a “Health Care Centr&’
under Associate Dean S. Lee te stimulate this development and coordinate
the efforts cf the individual hospitals presently affiliated with our
Faculty. This reorganization is actively in process at the present time,
and the small Family Practice Units established last year will 5e modi—
fied and possibly duplicated in other areas within the. coming months.
oThe overail objectives cf the program in Family Medicine are
I te provide the trainee wi th sound general know)edge in ail clinical
u -32.
disciplins with particular emphais on the achievement of excellence
Oin the provision of continuing and comprehensive care to ail members
of the family. To achieve these objectives, the residents’ program
J] will include training by qualified Faculty teachers on the wards and
flanbulatory services in Internai Medicine, Paediatrics, Psychiatry,
Obstetrics—Gynaecology and Emergency Surgery. The. program design re—
il quires the resident to maintain throughout his training responsibility
and a close supervision cf the total medical needs of a selected group
of families.
The organization of the Family Practice Teaching Unlts will
provide supervision of graded responsibility which will depend on the
knowledge, skill and maturing judgement cf each resident. In addition,
the resident will gain experience in working with other members of the
health care team and participate in research directed to increase the
effectiveness and efficiency of famiiy medical care.
In this report &nly the presently established Family Practice
Units at the Jewish Gencral Hospital, St. Mary’s Hospital, the Montreal
Children’s Hospital and the Montreal Ceneral flospital are referred to.
It is, hever, extremcly probable that within the next twelve months
comparable ventures will be initiated in association with the Royal
Victoria Hospital and the Lakeshore General Hospital. In addition,
J] the programs in each area affiliated with the Faculty will be
coordinated, and one or more community clinics will be.jointly sponsored
and established in areas cf need as may be determined by our studies
El and by the 1)cpartment cf Social Affairs.
33.
These developments now give to the Faculty of Medicine an
excellent opportunfty to offer undergraduate and postgraduate students
learning experiences in primary care medicine. T1e ability to ensure
high standards of excellence is assumed. If these ventures are to be
successful and provide the much needed manpower for primary health
care, they will require a substantial commitment of effort and budget.
u
V 31,.
3• V The place of the program within the University networkV
3.1 State of the Discipline in Quebec -
3.1.1 Faculty of Nedicine McGill University
The paedagogical and administrative coordination of theprogram in Family Nedicine is provided by the Dean ofMedicine through the Residency Training Cotmnittee. TheResidency Training Comrrdttee is responsible for thequality of the program; the admission, evaluation andpromotion of candidates and inter—hospitai teachingactivities. V
3.1.2 Quebec Medical Schools
Residency training programs in Family Medicine have beenestabl±shed in University of Sherbrooke ancLLavalUniversity. The University of Nontreal intedsto initiatea Family Medicine Program in 1974. The Lal program basbeen submittcd to the Cons.Jdes UniversLt and theDirection générale de ignmentfuperioi”of theDepartnent of Education.
A study group of teachers of Family Nedicine from the fourQuebcc Modical Schools and representatives of the QuebecCollege of Physicians and Surgeons and the federation ofCeneral Practitioners of the Province of Quebec was con—vened on May 7, 1972. This comnitttee bas met on threeoccasions to coordinate the planning and development oftraining programs in the province.
The Quebec Coilege of Physicians and Surgeons
The Family Medicine programs of McCill University have beensubmitted to and approved by the Quebec College cf Physiciansand Surgeons and currently provide accepted training positions for 16 residents at the Montreal General ilospital,16 residents at the Jewish General Hospital and 8 residents at theSt. Mary’s Hospital.
The total nunber of approved positions in Family Medicinetraining prograrns in Quebec Is indicated on Table I, page 11.
3.2 State of the Discipline in Norch America and Europe
3.2.1 Canadian Medical Schools
11e administrative structure and resldent enroilment inFamily Medicine
training programs in Canadian Universitiesis shown in Table IL page 12..
35.
These programs are comparable te the program described inpresent proposai. In the majority the training is focusedon the Family Practice Unit and the goal of the program isto develop physicians capable of providing primary, con—tinuing ami comprehensive care to ail niembers of thefamily.
McMaster University and the University cf Western Ontariohave developed very extensive progranis for the training ofPamily Medicine residents.
3.2.2 American Programs
The Director of Approved Internships and Residencies in theUnited States cf Pnerica (1972) lists 194 training programsin Fa.rnily Practice and Cenerai Practice with a totaltraining. capacity of 2,453 resident positions (The totalnui’nber of residents in training in the U.S.A. is approxi—mately 50,000). 120 of the 194 programs are university affi—lïatcd.
3.2.3 The College of Family Physicians of Canada
This organization serves as an accreditation body fortrainces in Family Medicine in Canada, awarding a Certificatein Faudly Medicine to trainees who have met their trainingrequirements and passed their oral and written exandnation.
Preliminary program description cf the McG111 Family MedicineProgram has been subm±tted to the College cf Family Physiciansof Canada.
MILIEUX AGREES POUR HOSPITALS APPROVED 36.
LA RÉSIDENCE EN FOR RES/DENCY INMÉDECINE GÉNÉRALE GENERAL PRACTICE
---——l._.._..-
TABLEI -
QUEBE.C COLLEGE 0F PIIYSICIANS AND SCTRCEONS
List of Approved Residancy Training Positions in Farnily Nedicine1973—1974
RÉSIDENCE EN MÉDECINE GÉNÉRALE — RESIDEWCYIN GENERAL PRACTICE
I—, ?iomjire max. de résiden par p. No; max. de résident!D e-lcngth HOPITAUX AFFIClES Âppmd x. rumber ot residerits by hosp. Max. No. o! resident
du-o! ?,aximumProgramme AFFICItiTED HOSPITALS dans le in the
IN FiI - RIil RIV Programme
ans - UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL 24 24 24 48
years Hôpital de ChicoutirniChrist-Roi de QuébecEnfant-JésusLavaiSt-François d’AssiseSaint-SacrementCHU. de LavaiJeffery HaiesHôtel-Dieu do QuébocSt-Joseph de Trois-RivièresHôtel-Dieu de Lévis
pour renseignements supplémentaires sur les disponibilitésspécifiques de chaque milieux deformation d ‘Université Lava!, -
prière de s’adrosser au Directeurdu programme, à la Faculté domédecine.
ans - McGILC UNIVERSITY
yearsMontreai General Hospital 24 —‘ 40Jewish General Flosiiitii 24 8—’St. Mar-y’s Hospitul 24 4 4 t.
To be dedticted (rom therotating and mixed inteinships .
allotment,
ans - UNIVERSITÉ DE SHERRROOKE
years Clinique do I’ Universitéde Shcrbrooke 24 15Hôtel-Dieu de SherhrookeSherbrooko HospitalSt-Vincent-do-Pa LII
I.
TABLE II
STATUS 0F FANILY MEDICINE RESIDENCY TRAINING
IN CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES (July 1973)
-4.
. ResidentsUniversity Faculty Administrative Structurein Program
British Columbia Dept. ofFamily Medicine (proposed) 8
Alberta Dept. of Coinrnunity Medicine 15
Calgary Dcpt. of Family Medicine 22
Saskatchcwan Dept. of Family Medicine ——
Nanitoba No Department
Western Ontario Department of Family l1edicine 16
McMaster Department of Family Nedicine 40
Toronto Dept. of Family & Community Medicine 40
Queen’s Department of Family- Medicine 3
Ottawa Dept. of Social and Preventive Mcd. 18
Lavai Dept. of Social and Preventive Mcd. 23
Sherbrooke Dept. of Community Nedicine il
Montreal Dept. to be established ——
McGill Departmcnt of Family Medicine 13
Daihousie Division of Family Medici-ne 3
Memorial Division of Family Medicine 6
37.