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)ΠI

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.