In the United States, many medical college graduates choose non-research clinicians as their permanent careers. Their duty is to diagnose and treat patients. Evaluating their performance is based entirely on their clinical work. You are a good doctor if you can treat patients well by conventional methods. Only a few medical college graduates devote themselves to research, and only a few clinicians do both clinical work and basic research. It's not that clinicians don't pay attention to scientific research. A good clinician must understand the basics, think, engage in scientific research in clinical work and guide clinical work in scientific research. But doing scientific research is groundbreaking work, and it is necessary to transform new knowledge into new diagnosis or treatment methods. This is a very challenging job, which requires a high level of knowledge and a lot of scientific research and training. Because of the particularity and limitation of the working environment and objects of grass-roots doctors, it is decided that grass-roots doctors can not engage in highly professional scientific research or clinical work like doctors in large hospitals, and their thesis writing is restricted. Therefore, more grassroots doctors should be liberated from "scientific research", have more energy to engage in diagnosis and treatment activities, and have more time to communicate with patients.
Secondly, the evaluation system is classified by clinical specialty. For the sake of simplicity, clinicians are divided into two types: one depends largely on their clinical skills, such as surgeons. As a good surgeon, he should have enough medical knowledge and manual skills. Their performance is mainly based on the evaluation of these abilities. Ideally, surgeons can summarize their treatment results and publish them in peer-reviewed medical journals. The second is unskilled doctors, who mainly treat patients with new knowledge and drugs, such as doctors. The publication of papers may be a more important factor.