A survival guide for generalist physicians in academic fellowships

Summary  Generalist physicians pursuing fellowship training should develop an early strategic plan to guide them through their fellowship years. Though each fellow’s plan must be individualized, fellows should get started on independent projects early, decide how much time to allocate to various activities, strike an individualized balance between course work and independent projects, and learn how to choose and maintain relationships with mentors. Early decision making with regard to these aspects of fellowship will allow trainees to maximize their learning, development, and progress toward career goals. Presented in part as a precourse at the National Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine, San Francisco, Calif, April 1999. Dr. Whooley is supported by a Research Career Development Award from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Health Services Research and Development Service. Dr. Saha was a fellow in the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, University of Washington, and Health Services Research and Development, VA Puget Sound Health Care System. Drs. Christakis and Saint were fellows in the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, University of Washington, Dr. Whooley was a fellow in the Clinical Epidemiology Fellowship, San Francisco VA Medical Center and University of California, San Francisco, Dr. Simon was a fellow in the Harvard General Internal Medicine Fellowship and Faculty Development Program, and the Thomas O. Pyle Fellowship in Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care.     

Research activities of faculty in academic departments of medicine

To assess the involvement of current medical faculty in research, a research activities questionnaire and a faculty roster form were sent to all full-time, salaried faculty of departments of medicine in medical schools in the United States. Valid responses from 7483 faculty members were received from 119 medical schools. About 88% of respondents are men; 83% have M.D. degrees; 8% have a Ph.D. degree; and 7% have both degrees. Twenty-four percent of the faculty who have done research had little preparation for a research career. However, 45% of faculty with M.D. degrees had 2 or more years of research training. Seventy-seven percent of faculty with only an M.D. degree reported research activity from 1982 to 1983; the median effort of all faculty with an M.D. is 25%. Faculty with both degrees are more involved in research and the median effort for those with a Ph.D. is 95%.     

Autonomous departments of emergency medicine in contemporary academic medical centers

There are currently 20 autonomous departments of emergency medicine in United States medical schools. EDs seeking autonomous status should institute a faculty development program to channel faculty energy into worthwhile research projects; establish protected time for clinical faculty to increase research productivity; develop expertise to compete for extramural funding; initiate an intramural research program so that faculty can learn the basics of grantsmanship; teach health care issues in ambulatory medicine; become involved in interdisciplinary teaching programs and curriculum development; maintain the present faculty commitment to 24-hour attending coverage; and develop university-based programs that originate from the ED. Program directors should establish liaisons with the medical school dean to acquaint him with the advantages of an autonomous department of emergency medicine; attempt to assess other relationships within the medical school to determine support for emergency medicine and to uncover and address opposition to autonomous departmental status; attempt to serve on medical school committees to meet other faculty, solve problems with them and develop trusting relationships; and develop broad-based support for autonomous departmental status both within and outside of the university. By devising and following a deliberate approach to attaining departmental status, emergency medicine will be assured of continued growth in the important decade ahead.     

A time of accelerated change in academic cardiovascular medicine: implications for academic divisions of cardiology and their training programs

With the vast epidemic of vascular disease predicted to be the leading cause of death and disability by a growing margin over the next 30 years, academic medical centers with cardiology training programs have a special responsibility. Given the dramatic advances of biotechnology in producing highly effective but expensive strategies of prevention and treatment, cardiovascular specialists should assist their academic centers in envisioning the future to prepare trainees for a different environment. Cardiologists of the future must be able to adapt to a societal need for patient-oriented, team-based clinical care and rapidly evolving technology, while maintaining the fundamental skills and knowledge required for individual patient interaction. Academic programs should benchmark their activities to ensure responsible resource allocation so that cardiologists of the future will be trained in an environment stimulating excellence and creativity.     

The changing role of academic health care centers in generalist education and practice support

Academic medical centers have been more compatible with the training and support of specialist and subspecialist physicians than that of their generalist colleagues. To meet the increasing demand for well-prepared generalist physicians, academic centers must change the manner in which they discharge their traditional missions of patient care, education, and training. This will require alteration of their organizational structures, changes in the allocation of resources, and an evolution of the culture of academic medicine toward one that is supportive of generalist education and practice. This paper discusses 1) the present organizational, structural, and cultural elements of the academic health care center that are inadequate for that goal; 2) a model for reorganizing academic health care centers to best achieve that goal; and 3) educational programs and technologies that promise to address the continuing educational needs of generalists.     

Postdoctoral research training of full-time faculty in academic departments of medicine

This report shows the results of a survey of 5604 faculty in departments of medicine, 4200 of whom had postdoctoral research training. As a follow-up to a previous study of research activity in the same population, this retrospective survey focused on location of training, source of funding, structure of the training program, impact of the training experience on career development, and respondents' recommendations for changes in training programs. A predominant finding is that most postdoctoral training occurred in medical schools, and the primary source of funding was the National Institutes of Health. For faculty members with the MD degree, being an active researcher and principal investigator for a peer-reviewed research grant were associated with length of training. The average length of time between the end of postdoctoral research training and obtaining the first peer-reviewed research grant was 24 months, regardless of length of training, source of training support, training site, or type of academic degree (MD, MD-PhD, or PhD). The results of this survey suggest a tentative formula to be a successful researcher in academic medicine: 2 or more years of postdoctoral research training, including formal course work in the fundamental sciences pertinent to biomedical research; 2 to 3 years of full research support from the academic institution until the first extramural grant is obtained; and commitment of at least 33% of time to research activities. The results also suggest directions for change and improvement in future research training programs.     

A survey of academic departments of emergency medicine regarding operation and clinical practice

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To survey academic departments of emergency medicine concerning their operation and clinical practice. METHODS: A survey was mailed to the chairs of all 56 academic departments of emergency medicine in the United States requesting information concerning operations and clinical activity in budget year 1997-1998 compared with 1995-1996. These results were then compared with a similar survey conducted in the fall of 1996, examining the 1995-1996 academic year compared with the 1994-1995 academic year. RESULTS: Forty-one (73%) academic departments of emergency medicine responded. For 1997-1998, compared with 1995-1996, 24 (59%) academic departments of emergency medicine reported an increase in emergency department patient volume; 10 (24%) reported a decrease. Twenty-four (51%) academic departments of emergency medicine reported an increase in ED patient severity, whereas 7 (15%) reported a decrease. Twenty-five (61%) academic departments of emergency medicine reported an increase in net clinical revenue for emergency medicine services, and 9 (22%) reported a decrease. Only 9 (22%) academic departments of emergency medicine reported other academic departments within their university/medical center aggressively directing patients away from the ED compared with 14 (30%) in the previous study. The percentage of academic departments of emergency medicine using midlevel providers remained essentially the same over time (68% versus 66%). In both studies, midlevel providers were used most commonly in a fast-track setting. Only 37% of academic departments of emergency medicine reported having an observation unit; staffing in all cases was by emergency physicians. Since the last survey, 38 (93%) academic departments of emergency medicine reported their medical center or hospital negotiating with managed care organizations to provide services. Unfortunately, only 41% of chairs were involved in these discussions. Between January 1, 1997, and the 1998 fall survey, 29% of academic departments of emergency medicine reported their university merging with another university system, and 19% reported such mergers being discussed. Similarly, between January 1, 1997, and fall 1998, 22% of academic departments of emergency medicine reported their institution merging with a private entity, whereas 16% reported ongoing discussions. CONCLUSION: Academic departments of emergency medicine have experienced some encouraging trends: an increase in ED patient volume, patient severity, and net clinical revenue during the study period. Midlevel providers continue to be used primarily in fast-track areas of EDs. An area of potential growth for academic departments of emergency medicine is observation medicine, because only one third of academic departments of emergency medicine have such a unit. Academic medical centers have experienced a significant increase in merger activity during the study period.     

Perioperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in Israel: a survey of academic surgical departments

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) represents a serious threat to patients undergoing surgical procedures. Without thromboprophylaxis, deep vein thrombosis occurs in up to 60% of patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery and 15% of patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Although, many studies have shown the efficacy of pharmacologic and mechanical means of VTE prophylaxis, practice variations in this area abound worldwide. The purpose of this study was to determine the attitudes and practice of VTE prophylaxis of academic surgical department heads in Israel. METHODS: A questionnaire covering various aspects of VTE prophylaxis was mailed to all surgical department heads of university teaching hospitals in Israel. Three months later, the same questionnaire was sent to department heads who had not yet replied. Data retrieved from the returned questionnaires were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 250 departments in 23 hospitals affiliated to the four medical schools in Israel were identified; 130 department heads (52%) returned the questionnaires. The current study analyzes results obtained from the general surgical, orthopedic, urological, vascular and gynecological departments only. The total number of responses from these departments was 90 (69% response rate). Sixty-seven percent of the departments considered VTE to be a clinical problem. Ninety-four percent of departments have a policy for VTE prophylaxis. The most frequently used modalities for VTE prophylaxis (more than one option possible) were low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) (59%), unfractionated heparin (43%) and an intermittent pneumatic compression device (20%). VTE prophylaxis is begun 12 h preoperatively by 33% of departments, 2-4 h preoperatively by 20% of departments and with premedication by 8% of departments. VTE prophylaxis was continued during the postoperative period by all departments, with 52% stopping prophylaxis upon patient mobilization. Bleeding complications have been noted by 55% of departments, of these 9% were considered major. In general surgical, orthopedic and gynecologic departments, VTE prophylaxis was widely used for those procedures for which published guidelines exist, while considerable variation in VTE prophylaxis administration was demonstrated in a number of commonly encountered clinical situations for which there are no published recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that academic surgical departments in Israel conform to standard VTE prophylaxis guidelines. However, considerable variations in practice exist regarding the means of prophylaxis, onset of prophylaxis and its duration. These areas should be the focus of ongoing educational efforts including the development of uniform practice guidelines to improve the quality of care regarding VTE prophylaxis. Furthermore, attention should be given to methods for decreasing hemorrhage caused by LMWH and unfractionated heparin usage.     

Devices for difficult airway management in academic emergency departments: results of a national survey.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We conducted a national survey of emergency medicine residency program directors to determine which alternative devices were available in their emergency departments for difficult airway management. We also assessed the residency directors' experience in use of these devices. METHODS: After approval was received from the institutional review board at our institution, residency directors were contacted by mail, fax, or phone in October 1997. Alternative intubation devices were defined as devices that do not involve use of a laryngoscope and direct visualization for tracheal tube placement. Alternative ventilation devices were defined as those that do not use a face mask for ventilation. We asked whether the following alternative intubation devices were stocked in their department: a flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope, a rigid fiberoptic device (ie, Bullard, Wu-Scope), a lighted stylet, or a retrograde intubation kit. We also asked about the following alternative ventilation devices: a transtracheal jet ventilation system with a 50-psi oxygen source and control valve, the esophageal tracheal twin-lumen airway device (Combitube), or the laryngeal mask airway. Residency directors were also questioned about their duration of practice, intubation experience, and use of these devices. RESULTS: We obtained information from 95 of 118 (81%) programs. Of 95 programs, 61 (64%) had a fiberoptic bronchoscope, 43 (45%) a retrograde intubation kit, 33 (35%) a lighted stylet, and 6 (.06%) a rigid fiberoptic device. Forty-seven (49%) of the programs reported 2 or more devices, and 20 (21%) reported having no alternative intubation devices. Of 95 programs, 64 (67%) had a transtracheal jet ventilation system, 25 (26%) had the Combitube, and 25 (26%) had the laryngeal mask airway. Thirty-one (33%) programs had at least 2 alternative ventilation devices, and 20 (21%) had none. Ten (11%) programs had no alternative intubating or ventilation devices. Additional information on duration of practice, intubation experience, and actual use of alternative devices was obtained from 83 of the 95 (87%) emergency medicine residency directors contacted. Forty-one (49%) reported never having used an alternative device for intubation. The most commonly used alternative intubation device was the flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope (37%), and the mean number of times any alternative device was used was 7. CONCLUSION: The availability of devices for difficult airway management varies tremendously across emergency medicine residency programs. Only half of residency program directors had any experience with these devices, and among those that reported any experience, they are used rarely.     

Innovative generalist programs

Academic health care centers increasingly are exploring innovative ways to increase the supply of generalist physicians. The authors review successful innovations at representative academic health centers in the areas of recruitment and admissions, undergraduate medical education, residency training, and practice support. Lessons learned focus on those areas that have demonstrated improvements in the number and quality of physicians trained in family practice, general pediatrics, and general internal medicine. Successful recruitment of generalism-oriented applicants requires identification and tracking of rural, minority, and other special groups of students at the high school and college levels. Academic health care centers that provide early, sustained, community-based, ambulatory experiences for medical students and residents encourage trainees to maintain and choose generalist careers. Finally, academic health care centers that link with community providers and with state government encourage the retention of generalist physicians through continuing education and teaching networks.     

Preparing generalist physicians

A combination of financial, regulatory, and professional factors have led to a gradual but pronounced decline in generalist training and practice in the United States. This trend is likely to undergo dramatic reversal, however, as reflected by the diverse range of health care reform proposals incorporating incentives to promote generalist education and primary care practice. Considerable consensus has been reached by a number of professional organizations and public policy groups regarding the broad details of reform of generalist physician training, but key areas of controversy remain with important implications for academic medical centers. In addition, the generalist professional organizations, particularly those of family practice, general internal medicine, and general pediatrics, are being challenged to reconcile historic differences in the definitions and training of generalist competence. In this, the call for “retraining subspecialists” will both offer an opportunity and entail a risk. Finally, academic medical centers will need new organizational structures that can combine the distinctive intellectual traditions and the expertise of the generalist medical disciplines to develop new approaches to the education and practice of primary care.     

Training generalist physicians

To train more generalist physicians, structural changes must be made along the continuum of medical education. Future generalists require in-depth exposure to primary care practice, with substantive experience in the longitudinal management of patient panels and the opportunity to work with successful generalist role models. Clinical training and course work must incorporate a wide range of skills and disciplines, including areas now under-emphasized, such as epidemiology, health services, and psychosocial medicine. Recommendations for structural changes to increase the generalist focus of medical education include: 1) the development within institutions of central authorities, involving departments of internal medicine, family medicine, and pediatrics, in joint efforts to foster all aspects of generalist training, including recruitment, curriculum development, community linkages, innovative approaches to training, and recognition and support for successful generalist teachers; 2) commitment of a minimum of 50% of clinical training to ambulatory care settings at both medical school and residency levels; 3) required longitudinal care experiences for all medical students and a 20% or greater time commitment to longitudinal care for internal medicine, pediatrics, and family medicine residents; and 4) increased numbers of generalist faculty and enhanced teaching skills among faculty in the outpatient environment, to guarantee increased exposure of medical students and residents to generalist role models.