Geriatric medicine training for family practice residents in the 21st century: a report from the Residency Assistance Program/Harfford Geriatrics Initiative

Increasing the quality and quantity of geriatric medicine training for family practice residents is a particular challenge for community-based programs. With support from the John A. Hartford Foundation of New York City, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) implemented in 1995 a multi-part project to improve the amount and quality of geriatric medicine education received by family practice residents. This report summarizes the initial results of the regional geriatric medicine curriculum retreats for residency directors. The goals of the retreats were to build recognition among the residency directors of the skills that future family physicians will require to be successful providers of primary care to older adults and to allow the residency directors to identify and develop solutions to barriers to improving geriatric medicine training for residents. Forty-six program directors participated in the three retreats between February 2000 and February 2001. The participants represented 52 programs and rural tracks in all geographic regions, small and large programs, and urban and rural settings. The program directors developed a consensus on the geriatric medicine knowledge, skills, and attitudes that should be expected of all family practice residency graduates; developed a list of basic, required educational resources for each family practice residency program; and proposed solutions to common obstacles to successful curriculum development.     

Length and content of family practice residency training

BACKGROUND: Family practice residency programs are based largely on a model implemented more than 30 years ago. Substantial changes in medical practice, technology, and knowledge necessitate reassessment of how family physicians are prepared for practice. METHODS: We simultaneously surveyed samples of family practice residency directors, first-year residents, and family physicians due for their first board recertification examination to determine, using both quantitative and qualitative methods, their opinions about the length and content of family practice residencies in the United States. RESULTS: Twenty-seven percent of residency directors, 32% of residents, and 28% of family physicians favored extending family practice residency to 4 years; very few favored 2- or 5-year programs. There was dispersion of opinions about possible changes within each group and among the three groups. Most in all three groups would be willing to extend residency for more training in office-based procedures and sports medicine, but many were unwilling to extend residency for more training in surgery or hospital-based care. Residents expressed more willingness than program directors or family physicians to change training. Barriers to change included disagreement about the need to change; program financing and opportunity costs, such as loss of income and delay in debt repayment; and potential negative impact on student recruitment. CONCLUSION: Most respondents support the current 3-year model of training. There is considerable interest in changing both the length and content of family practice training. Lack of consensus suggests that a period of elective experimentation might be needed to assure family physicians are prepared to meet the needs and expectations of their patients.     

Training in Firearm Safety Counseling in Family Practice Residency Programs

The purpose of this study was to establish a national baseline regarding the prevalence of training of family practice residents regarding firearm safety counseling. A national survey of the residency directors at the 420 accredited family practice residency programs in the coterminous United States was used to assess the prevalance of training in firearm safety counseling, perceived effectiveness of such training, and perceived barriers to such counseling in residency programs. Program directors were sent a two-page questionnaire on firearm safety counseling activity in their programs and 71% responded. Few residencies (16%) had formal training in firearm safety counseling. The most common perceived barriers were no trained personnel (31%), too many other important issues (31%), not enough time (30%), and lack of educational resources (28%). Patient education materials (57%), video training programs (49%), and a curriculum guide (46%) were identified as resources, that would be most helpful in implementing a firearm safety counseling program. The results showed that formal training in firearm safety counseling is virtually absent from family practice residency training programs. This finding is not surprising given that less than 14% of the directors perceived firearm safety counseling would be effective in reducing firearm-related injuries or deaths and that research on effectiveness of such counseling is very limited.     

Contractual arrangements between residency programs and HMOs.

BACKGROUND. Although one out of seven health maintenance organizations (HMOs) is directly involved in graduate medical education (GME), either as an accredited sponsoring organization or through a contractual agreement with an academic medical center or teaching hospital to serve as an ambulatory rotation site, relatively little is known about the extent to which HMOs have provider contracts with faculty or residents of GME programs. Such provider contracts are not agreements to collaborate on the education of residents, but rather contractual arrangements under which individual physicians or groups (who happen to be residents or faculty) agree to provide services to HMO enrollees in return for some form of compensation. METHODS. In 1990, the Group Health Association of America conducted a survey of a sample of residency training programs in family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics to ascertain the extent to which (1) residents and faculty of residency training programs are participating physicians in HMOs; and (2) HMO enrollees are serving as the patient base for GME in ambulatory settings. RESULTS. Overall, 42% of the residency program respondents indicated that they contract with HMOs to provide services to enrollees. Nearly two thirds (64%) of family practice programs have provider contracts as compared with 28% of pediatrics programs and 24% of internal medicine programs. Provider contracts with independent practice associations are by far the most common, followed by group, network, and staff model contracts, in that order. CONCLUSIONS. It is apparent that provider contractual arrangements between HMOs and primary care residency programs are quite common, especially in the area of family practice. These contractual arrangements have probably resulted in a more predictable and stable patient revenue base for residency programs. The long-term effects on provider practice styles and the financing of graduate medical education are less clear.     

Obstetric care in family practice residencies: a 5-year follow-up survey

BACKGROUND: The percentage of family physicians delivering babies decreased from 46% in 1978 to 32% in 1992. Some family practice leaders predicted that, by the turn of the century, training for family practice obstetrics would focus primarily on those planning to work in remote or rural settings. A 1993 study found three primary factors associated with an increased incidence of future maternity care. In 1997 the Residency Review Commission (RRC) stipulated that all family practice residencies have at least 1 family physician serve as an intrapartum attending physician for family practice resident deliveries. METHODS: Using an instrument similar to that used in 1993, we surveyed the directors of 462 family practice residencies in the United States. Sixty-four percent (295) of the program directors responded to one of two mailings. RESULTS: Compared with the survey published in 1993, program directors estimated a 16% increase in the number of residents who included obstetrics in their first practice after residency. Factors associated with increased obstetric participation included having only family physician faculty supervise uncomplicated deliveries and having family physician faculty who could perform other perinatal procedures. Programs that had 4 or more family physician faculty doing obstetrics and those that had more than 10 deliveries per month also produced more physicians who provided maternity care. Fifty-three percent of residencies that did not have family physician faculty attending deliveries before 1997 now meet this RRC requirement. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that, according to their program directors' estimates, more family practice residents are including obstetrics in their first practice after residency compared with 5 years ago. The new RRC regulation was associated with more than 50% of previously noncompliant programs adding or retraining faculty who could attend resident deliveries within 12 months of the inception of the new policy.     

Twenty Years of the Ryan Residency Training Program in Abortion and Family Planning

ObjectiveTo summarize the effects of routine, opt-out abortion and family planning residency training on obstetrics and gynecology (ob-gyn) residents’ clinical skills in uterine evacuation and intentions to provide abortion care after residency.MethodsData from ob-gyn residency programs supported during the first 20 years of the Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program in Abortion and Family Planning were analyzed. Postrotation surveys assessed residents’ training experiences and acquisition of abortion care skills. Residency program director surveys assessed benefits of the training to residents and the academic department from the educators’ perspectives.ResultsA total of 2775 residents in 89 ob-gyn programs completed postrotation surveys for a response rate of 72%. During the rotation, residents – including those who only partially participated – gained exposure to and skills in first- and second-trimester abortion care. Sixty-one percent intended to provide abortion care in their postresidency practice. More than 90% of residency program directors (97.5% response rate) reported that training improved resident competence in abortion and contraception care and 81.3% reported that the training increased their own program's appeal to residency applicants.ConclusionOver 20 years, the Ryan Program has supported programs to integrate abortion training to give ob-gyn residents the skills and inspiration to provide comprehensive reproductive health care, including uterine evacuation and abortion care, in future practice. Residency program directors noted that this integrated training meets resident applicants’ expectations.ImplicationsRyan Program residents are trained to competence and are prepared, both clinically and in their professional attitudes, to care for women's reproductive health.     

Entry of US medical school graduates into family practice residencies: 2002-2003 and 3-year summary

This is the 22nd report prepared by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) on the percentage of each US medical school's graduates entering family practice residency programs. Approximately 10.3% of the 15,810 graduates of US medical schools between July 2001 and June 2002 were first-year family practice residents in 2002, compared with 10.9% in 2001 and 12.8% in 2000. Medical school graduates from publicly funded medical schools were more likely to be first-year family practice residents in October 2002 than were residents from privately funded schools, 12.3% compared with 7.3%. The Mountain and the West North Central regions reported the highest percentage of medical school graduates who were first-year residents in family practice programs in October 2002 at 16.3% and 15.9%, respectively; the Middle Atlantic and New England regions reported the lowest percentages at 6.1% and 5.6%, respectively. Nearly half of the medical school graduates (48.6%) entering a family practice residency program as first-year residents in October 2002 entered a program in the same state where they graduated from medical school. The percentages for each medical school have varied substantially from year to year since the AAFP began reporting this information. This article reports the average percentage for each medical school for the last 3 years. Also reported are the number and percentage of graduates from colleges of osteopathic medicine who entered Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited family practice residency programs, based on estimates provided by the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine.     

Support services for family practice residents.

BACKGROUND. Internship and residency are stressful experiences for physicians in training. Residency programs vary in their provision of supportive services for residents. METHODS. A random sample of 50% of the nation's family practice residency programs was surveyed to determine the prevalence of 19 support services, 10 of which were assessed a decade previously. Programs were also asked about on-call frequency, vacation benefits, and program size. RESULTS. Approximately 91% of the programs responded. The surveys indicated that residents were on call an average of once every four nights, a 10% decrease from a decade ago. The prevalence of three support services had increased over the last decade: seminars and speakers on the stresses and conflicts of being a physician, support groups for residents, and child care services. "Night-float" rotations and part-time residencies are the least offered support services of those studied. CONCLUSIONS. Support for family practice residents is increasing, yet in many cases remains inadequate.     

Firearm Injury Prevention Training in Preventive Medicine Residency Programs

Preventive medicine plays a central role in the reducing the number of deaths due to preventable causes of premature deaths. General Preventive Medicine Residency programs have not been studied in relation to training in this area. A three-wave mail survey was conducted with email and telephone follow-ups. The outcome measures were the portion of program directors involved in training residents on firearm injury prevention issues and their perceived benefits and barriers of training residents on firearm injury prevention issues. Only 25% of the programs provided formal training on firearm injury prevention. Program directors who provided formal training perceived significantly higher number of benefits to offering such training than did directors who did not provide such training but no significant difference was found between the two for number of perceived barriers. If preventive medicine residency graduates are to play a role in reducing premature morbidity and mortality from firearms it will require more residencies to offer formal training in this area. The Association for Prevention Teaching and Research needs to develop guidelines on specific curriculum topics regarding firearm injury prevention.     

Entry of US medical school graduates into family practice residencies: 2001-2002 and 3-year summary

This is the 21st report prepared by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) on the percentage of each US medical school's graduates entering family practice residency programs. Approximately 10.9% of the 15,900 graduates of US medical schools between July 2000 and June 2001 were first-year family practice residents in 2001, compared with 12.8% in 2000 and 13.4% in 1999. Medical school graduates from publicly funded medical schools were more likely to be first-year family practice residents in October 2001 than were residents from privately funded schools, 12.7% compared with 8.4%. The West North Central region reported the highest percentage of medical school graduates who were first-year residents in family practice programs in October 2001 at 15.2%; the Middle Atlantic and New England regions reported the lowest percentages at 8.0% and 7.2%, respectively. Nearly half of the medical school graduates (48.0%) entering a family practice residency program as first-year residents in October 2001 entered a program in the same state where they graduated from medical school. The percentages for each medical school have varied substantially from year to year since the AAFP began reporting this information. This article reports the average percentage for each medical school for the last 3 years. Also reported are the number and percentage of graduates from colleges of osteopathic medicine who entered Accreditation Councilfor Graduate Medical Education-accreditedfamily practice residency programs, based on estimates provided by the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine.     

Current Status of Nutrition Training in Graduate Medical Education From a Survey of Residency Program Directors

Introduction: Nutrition leaders surmised graduate medical nutrition education was not well addressed because most medical and surgical specialties have insufficient resources to teach current nutrition practice. A needs assessment survey was constructed to determine resources and commitment for nutrition education from U.S. graduate medical educators to address this problem. Methods: An online survey of 36 questions was sent to 495 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Program Directors in anesthesia, family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics/gynecology, and general surgery. Demographics, resources, and open‐ended questions were included. There was a 14% response rate (72 programs), consistent with similar studies on the topic. Results: Most (80%) of the program directors responding were from primary care programs, the rest surgical (17%) or anesthesia (3%). Program directors themselves lacked knowledge of nutrition. While some form of nutrition education was provided at 78% of programs, only 26% had a formal curriculum and physicians served as faculty at only 53%. Sixteen programs had no identifiable expert in nutrition and 10 programs stated that no nutrition training was provided. Training was variable, ranging from an hour of lecture to a month‐long rotation. Seventy‐seven percent of program directors stated that the required educational goals in nutrition were not met. The majority felt an advanced course in clinical nutrition should be required of residents now or in the future. Conclusions: Nutrition education in current graduate medical education is poor. Most programs lack the expertise or time commitment to teach a formal course but recognize the need to meet educational requirements. A broad‐based, diverse universal program is needed for training in nutrition during residency.     

Entry of US medical school graduates into family practice residencies: 1999-2000 and 3-year summary

This is the 19th report prepared by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) on the percentage of each US medical school's graduates entering family practice residency programs. Approximately 13.4% of the 16,143 graduates of US medical schools between July 1998 and June 1999 were first-year family practice residents in 1999, compared with 15.4% in 1998 and 16.6% in 1997. Medical school graduates from publicly funded medical schools were almost twice as likely to be first-year family practice residents in October 1999 than were residents from privately funded schools, 16.2% compared with 9.3%. The West North Central region reported the highest percentage of medical school graduates who were first-year residents in family practice programs in October 1999 at 20.6%; the Middle Atlantic and New England regions reported the lowest percentages at 7.7% and 8.0%, respectively. Nearly half of the medical school graduates (48.4%) entering a family practice residency program as first-year residents in October 1999 entered a program in the same state where they graduated from medical school. The percentages for each medical school have varied substantially from year to year since the AAFP began reporting this information. This article reports the average percentage for each medical school for the last 3 years. Also reported are the number and percentage of graduates from colleges of osteopathic medicine who entered Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited family practice residency programs, based on estimates provided by the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine.     

Entry of US medical school graduates into family practice residencies: 2000-2001 and 3-year summary

This is the 20th report prepared by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) on the percentage of each US medical school's graduates entering family practice residency programs. Approximately 12.8% of the 15,825 graduates of US medical schools between July 1999 and June 2000 were first-year family practice residents in 2000, compared with 13.4% in 1999 and 15.4% in 1998. Medical school graduates from publicly funded medical schools were almost twice as likely to be first-year family practice residents in October 2000 than were residents from privately funded schools, 15.6% compared with 8.7%. The West North Central region reported the highest percentage of medical school graduates who were first-year residents in family practice programs in October 2000 at 18.2%; the Middle Atlantic and New England regions reported the lowest percentages at 8.3% and 6.8%, respectively. Nearly half of the medical school graduates (47.0%) entering a family practice residency program as first-year residents in October 2000 entered a program in the same state where they graduated from medical school. The percentages for each medical school have varied substantially from year to year since the AAFP began reporting this information. This article reports the average percentage for each medical school for the last 3 years. Also reported are the number and percentage of graduates from colleges of osteopathic medicine who entered Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited family practice residency programs, based on estimates provided by the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine.     

Experiences with a combined residency in internal and preventive medicine

BACKGROUND: The importance of integrating preventive medicine training into other residency programs was reinforced recently by the residency review committee for preventive medicine. Griffin Hospital in Derby CT has offered a 4-year integrated internal medicine and preventive medicine residency program since 1997. This article reports the outcomes of that program. METHODS: Data were collected from surveys of program graduates and the American Boards of Internal and Preventive Medicine in 2005-2007, and analyzed in 2007-2008. Graduates rated the program in regard to job preparation, the ease of transition to employment, the value of skills learned, the perceived quality of board preparation, and the quality of the program overall. Graduates rated themselves on core competencies set by the Accreditation Committee for Graduate Medical Education. RESULTS: Since 1997, the program has enrolled 22 residents. Residents and graduates contribute significantly toward quality of care at the hospital. Graduates take and pass at high rates the boards for both for internal and preventive medicine: 100% took internal medicine boards, 90% of them passed; 63% took preventive medicine boards, 100% of them passed). The program has recruited residents mainly through the match. Graduates rated most elements of the program highly. They felt well-prepared for their postgraduation jobs; most respondents reported routinely using preventive medicine skills learned during residency. Graduates either have gone into academic medicine (31%); public health (14%); clinical fellowships (18%); or primary care (9%); or they combine elements of clinical medicine and public health (28%). CONCLUSIONS: Integrating preventive medicine training into clinical residency programs may be an efficient, viable, and cost-effective way of creating more medical specialists with population-medicine skills.     

Colposcopy practice and training in family practice residency programs.

BACKGROUND: The potential growth of colposcopy as a family medicine procedural skill is directly related to the training currently offered to family practice residents. To define whether these skills are being adequately offered to physicians who want to perform this procedure for their patients, a study was designed to investigate the current status of colposcopy practice and training in family practice residency programs. METHODS: A 16-item survey sent to 356 family practice residency directors in the United States included items concerning colposcopy practice, training, educational programs and strategies, colposcopy coordinator educational background, and colposcopic resource materials and equipment. RESULTS: Surveys were returned from 204 (57 percent) family practice residencies. Colposcopy was performed at 45 percent of the residencies that responded. Ninety-six percent of the respondents who did not perform colposcopy believed colposcopy is a procedure that should be performed by family physicians. Clinical teaching and supervision was the most common method of resident training (74 percent). Colposcopy training coordinators were usually family physicians (72 percent), primarily trained by gynecologists. Assistance with implementing a colposcopy training program was requested by 85 percent of those programs presently not performing colposcopy. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that there are opportunities for further development of colposcopy practice and training in family practice residencies.     

Use of a sports medicine clinic in a family practice residency

The experience of a pilot sports medicine clinic in affiliation with a family practice residency program is reviewed. The use of volunteer orthopedic staffing along with residents working in an acute sports medicine clinic in a community hospital proved to be a valuable addition to the orthopedic exposure during residency training. Seventy-eight patient contacts involving 93 injuries were encountered over a seven-week period. Three injuries required hospitalization for further definitive care. The benefits derived suggest that a similar clinic setup in other residency training programs could enhance the required orthopedic rotation as well as give acute, responsible care to the injured athlete. Educationally the resident's role as the athlete's physician provided a clinical experience valuable to a primary care practice.     

Follow-up on family practice residents' perspectives on length and content of training

BACKGROUND: The structure of family practice residency programs remains essentially unchanged from the model first proposed more than 35 years ago. Advances in medical technology and knowledge combined with increasing restrictions on resident work hours and decreasing medical student interest invite reconsideration of how family physicians are trained. METHODS: We resurveyed 442 third-year family practice residents who had participated in a prior study in 2000 to determine whether their opinions about the length and content of residency had changed and whether they would still choose to be a physician and a family physician. RESULTS: Thirty-seven percent of responding third-year residents favored extending family practice residency to 4 years. Compared as groups, there was relatively little change in opinion between first- and third-year residents. However, residents' individual responses about the settings and content areas for which they would be willing to consider extending training varied considerably between years 1 and 3. Personal characteristics did not seem to influence residents' opinions about length and content of training. Reasons for favoring a 4-year program and barriers to change were similar to those reported previously. Residents' commitment to medicine and family medicine was still strong and was not associated with their opinions about length of training. CONCLUSION: Although most surveyed residents favored a 3-year residency program, a substantial minority still supported extending training to 4 years, and the majority would still choose to enter family medicine programs if they were extended. Given a lack of consensus about specific content areas, family medicine should consider a period of experimentation to determine how to best prepare future family physicians.     

Entry of US medical school graduates into family medicine residencies: 2004-2005 and 3-year summary

This is the 24th report prepared by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) on the percentage of each US medical school's graduates entering family medicine residency programs. Approximately 9.2% of the 15,895 graduates of US medical schools between July 2003 and June 2004 were first-year family medicine residents in 2004, compared with 9.3% in 2003 and 10.3% in 2002. Medical school graduates from publicly funded medical schools were more likely to be first year family medicine residents in October 2004 than were residents from privately funded schools, 10.8% compared with 6.5%. The West North Central and the Mountain regions reported the highest percentage of medical school graduates who were first-year residents in family medicine programs in October 2004 at 14.9% and 12.8%, respectively; the New England and Middle Atlantic regions reported the lowest percentages at 6.6% and 5.2%, respectively. Nearly half of the medical school graduates (46.8%) entering a family medicine residency program as first-year residents in October 2004 entered a program in the same state where they graduated from medical school. The percentages for each medical school have varied substantially from year to year since the AAFP began reporting this information. This article reports the average percentage for each medical school for the last 3 years. Also reported are the number and percentage of graduates from colleges of osteopathic medicine who entered Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited family medicine residency programs, based on estimates provided by the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine.     

Entry of US medical school graduates into family medicine residencies: 2005-2006 and 3-year summary

This is the 25th report prepared by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) on the percentage of each US medical school's graduates entering family medicine residency programs. Approximately 8.4% of the 16,066 graduates of US medical schools between July 2004 and June 2005 were first-year family medicine residents in 2005, compared with 9.2% in 2004 and 9.3% in 2003. Medical school graduates from publicly funded medical schools were more likely to be first-year family medicine residents in October 2005 than were residents from privately funded schools, 9.9% compared with 5.8%. The Mountain and the West North Central regions reported the highest percentage of medical school graduates who were first-year residents in family medicine programs in October 2005 at 13.3% and 12.7%, respectively; the New England and Middle Atlantic regions reported the lowest percentages at 5.2% and 5.6%, respectively. Nearly half of the medical school graduates (47.3%) entering a family medicine residency program as first-year residents in October 2005 entered a program in the same state where they graduated from medical school. The percentages for each medical school have varied substantially from year to year since the AAFP began reporting this information. This article reports the average percentage for each medical school for the last 3 years. Also reported are the number and percentage of graduates from colleges of osteopathic medicine who entered Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited family medicine residency programs, based on estimates provided by the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine.