The development of academic geriatric medicine: progress toward preparing the nation's physicians to care for an aging population

Academic geriatric medicine programs are critical for training the physician workforce to care effectively for aging Americans. This article describes the progress made by medical schools in developing these programs. Academic leaders in geriatrics at all 145 accredited allopathic and osteopathic medical schools in the United States were surveyed in the winter of 2005 (68% response rate) and results compared with findings from a similar 2001 survey. Physician faculty in geriatrics at U.S. medical schools increased from 7.5 (mean) full-time equivalents (FTEs) in 2001 to 9.6 FTEs in 2005. Faculty and staff effort is mostly devoted to clinical practice (mean 36.9%) and education (mean 34.6%). A small number of programs focus on research; only six responding schools devote more than 40% of faculty effort to research. Seventy-one percent reported that their medical school required a geriatrics medical student clerkship or that their geriatric training was integrated into a required clinical rotation. In summary, from 2001 to 2005, more fellows and faculty have been recruited and trained, and some academic programs have emerged with strong education, research, and clinical initiatives. Medical student exposure to geriatrics curriculum has increased, although few academic geriatricians are pursuing research careers, and the number of practicing geriatricians is declining. An expanded investment in training the physician workforce to care for older adults will be required to ensure adequate care for aging Americans.     

The Training of Geriatricians in the United States: Three Decades of Progress

During the past 3 decades, significant progress has been made in preparing U.S. physicians to care for the growing elderly population. This paper reviews progress in training and certifying internists and family physicians in geriatric medicine. The establishment of the National Institute on Aging, a series of Institute of Medicine reports, Veterans Health Administration initiatives, and leadership and investment by the public sector and private foundations have supported the development of geriatric medicine training programs. In 1988, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education initially accredited 62 internal medicine (IM) and 16 family practice (FP) geriatric medicine fellowship programs. By academic year 2001–2002, 120 geriatric medicine fellowships were training 338 fellows. A recent survey of U.S. medical schools found a total of 869 full-time equivalent (FTE) geriatrics faculty members. Their geriatrics programs had a median of 5.0 FTE physician faculty members, with a range of 0 to 42. Recent surveys of IM and FP residency programs found 803 geriatrician faculty members teaching in IM residency programs (53% response rate) and 453 teaching in FP residency programs (75% response rate). From 1988 through 2002, 10,207 Certificates of Added Qualifications in Geriatrics were awarded. The distribution of these practicing geriatricians varied considerably by state, with the national average being 5.5 per 10,000 persons aged 75 and older. Individual state rates ranged from 2.2 to 15.9. Although geriatric medicine training has grown remarkably over the past 3 decades, this growth is still not producing the number of geriatricians needed to care for the growing elderly population. Thus, expanded investment in the training of geriatricians as faculty and practitioners is needed.     

Geriatrics training and education for nongeriatrician faculty: the Dean's Faculty Scholars in Aging Program

The University of South Carolina School of Medicine in Columbia implemented the Dean's Faculty Scholars in Aging (DFSA) Program in 2001 to strengthen the knowledge of geriatrics of nongeriatrician faculty members. The primary indicator of strengthening physicians' geriatrics knowledge was the development of new educational experiences by physicians in the DFSA Program. Twenty-six nongeriatrician faculty in seven departments were recruited to participate as scholars. Most scholars were in key educational positions, including assistant deans, department chairs, and clerkship and residency directors. Scholars received special training to develop geriatrics educational experiences based on their medical specialty and interests. Training encouraged cross-departmental collaboration. Scholars also had access to resources, including professional geriatric educators. Funds were available to support development of educational experiences and for a small amount of salary support. Since the program was implemented, 36 new geriatric experiences have been developed, 29 of the 36 were implemented, and 11 of the 36 were evaluated. Experiences included an elective for residents in the care of older patients in the emergency room and a required hospice rotation in the psychiatry clerkship for third-year medical students. All scholars developed a geriatrics educational experience, and most implemented one. This suggests that scholars demonstrated successful progress in geriatrics training.     

Geriatrics faculty in the United States: who are they and what are they doing?

Despite increases in geriatrics training at all levels of medical education, there is a nationwide shortage of geriatrics faculty. This shortage may be due in part to demands for clinical responsibilities that preclude adequate time for teaching and research. To learn about the professional activities of geriatrics faculty, we conducted a national survey of a 50% sample of all medical schools and their affiliated residency programs that focused on physician and non-physician geriatrics faculty in internal medicine, family practice, psychiatry, neurology, and physical medicine and rehabilitation. Although we found minor differences across specialties, in general, approximately one-third of physician faculty time is spent in teaching, the majority of which is clinical teaching. Less than 15% of physician faculty time is spent in research, and fewer than 10% of physician geriatrics faculty devote over half of their time to research. The percentage of time that non-physician faculty (other than "Research Only" faculty) spend in research is only slightly higher. These findings suggest that efforts to increase geriatrics education at all levels and promote research advances will be limited unless geriatricians devote substantially more of their time to these responsibilities.     

Creating a geriatric medicine fellowship program in 10 "easy" steps

The aging of the U.S. population poses one of the greatest future challenges for family medicine and internal medicine residency training. One important barrier to providing quality education and training in geriatric medicine to residents is a serious and growing shortage of practicing geriatricians and geriatrics faculty. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education currently accredits 45 family medicine-based and 107 internal medicine-based geriatric medicine fellowships in the United States. There are 13 American Osteopathic Association-certified geriatric medicine fellowship programs. In this article, the authors examine the rationale for the development of additional geriatric medicine fellowship programs and offer some practical suggestions and pointers for those interested in developing their own geriatric medicine fellowships. The authors write from the perspective of their own recent experiences with the development and accreditation of a family medicine residency-affiliated fellowship in geriatrics. Other residencies may find this article useful in determining the feasibility of developing a geriatric medicine fellowship for their programs and communities and will find practical guidance for beginning the process.     

Geriatric medicine and geriatric psychiatry clinical services affiliated with U.S. academic medical centers

U.S. academic medical centers are providing many geriatric medicine (GM) and geriatric psychiatry (GP) clinical services at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and non-VHA sites. This article describes the distribution and scope of GM and GP clinical services being provided. Academic GM leaders of the 146 U.S. allopathic and osteopathic medical schools were surveyed online in the spring of 2004. One hundred four program directors (71.2%) responded. These medical schools provided 1,325 GM and 376 GP clinical services, which included 654 VHA and 1,014 non-VHA GM and GP services, affiliation with 21 Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly, and 12 other specialized services. The mean number+/-standard deviation of distinct clinical services at each medical center was 16.4+/-8.2. More geriatrics faculty full-time equivalents, more time spent on training fellows, and designation as a GM Center of Excellence were associated with providing a wider range of geriatric clinical services. Using data from the survey, the first directory of GM and GP clinical services at academic medical centers was created (http://www.ADGAPSTUDY.uc.edu).     

John A. Hartford Foundation Centers of Excellence Program: History,Impact, and Legacy

The John A. Hartford Foundation (JAHF) created the Centers of Excellence in Geriatric Medicine and Geriatric Psychiatry in 1988 with the goal of establishing academic training environments to increase geriatrics‐trained faculty. The initiative identified medical schools with the necessary components for training academic geriatricians. JAHF grants provided the resources to create a cadre of physicians whose research, teaching and practice leads to substantial contributions in geriatrics. Results from two evaluations show that the program has successfully increased geriatrics‐prepared faculty who have achieved promotion and institutional retention, success in winning competitive research grants, and positions of leadership. The initiative strengthened the national network of geriatrics programs and served as a major driver of increased prestige for the fields of geriatric medicine and psychiatry.     

Paul B. Beeson career development awards in aging research and U.S. medical schools aging and geriatric medicine programs

Established in 1995, the Paul B. Beeson Career Development program provides faculty development awards to outstanding junior and midcareer faculty committed to academic careers in aging-related research, training, and practice. This study evaluated the effect of 134 Beeson Scholars on their medical schools' aging and geriatric medicine programs and on the field of aging research from 1995 to 2007. Quantitative and qualitative survey data from multiple sources, including the American Geriatrics Society/Association of Directors of Geriatric Academic Programs' Geriatrics Workforce Policy Studies Center, National Institutes of Health (NIH) rankings of research funding, and other governmental databases were used to compare 36 medical schools with Beeson Scholars with 34 similar medical schools without Beeson scholars and to examine the influence of Beeson Scholars on the field of geriatrics and aging. Most Beeson Scholars remained at the institution where they trained during their Beeson award, and 89% are still practicing or conducting research in the field of geriatrics and aging. Twenty-six (19.4%) of the scholars have led institutional research mentoring awards, 51 (39%) report leadership roles in institutional program project grants, and 13 (10%) report leadership roles in the Clinical and Translational Science Award programs at their institutions. Beeson Scholars are more likely than a matched sample of non-Beeson NIH K awardees to study important geriatric syndromes such as falls, cognitive impairment, adverse drug events, osteoporosis, and functional recovery from illness. Total Beeson Impact Years (the total number of years all Beeson Scholars have worked at each school) is positively correlated with more geriatrics research faculty, after controlling for NIH funding rank (P=.02). Beeson Scholars have made positive contributions to the development of academic geriatrics research programs at U.S. medical schools.     

Development of geriatrics-oriented faculty in general internal medicine

The need for adequate geriatrics training for the physician workforce has been recognized for decades. However, there are not enough academic geriatricians to provide for the educational needs of trainees, and this situation is not expected to change in the future. General internists are often responsible for teaching medical students and internal medicine residents to care for elderly patients in inpatient and ambulatory settings. These academic general internists could play a pivotal role in providing geriatrics instruction. To characterize what is being done to develop geriatrics-oriented general internal medicine faculty, we identified current practices, "best practices," goals and targets, and barriers to achieving those goals and targets. We reviewed the literature on faculty-development programs for general internal medicine faculty, and we held focus groups and structured interviews with general internal medicine unit chiefs and directors of Geriatric Centers of Excellence at 46 medical schools throughout the United States. We found a need for programs to develop geriatrics-oriented academic general internists. Although general internal medicine faculties seem receptive to further geriatrics training, important obstacles exist. These include inadequate time and resources as well as motivational and attitudinal challenges. We discuss potential solutions for overcoming these barriers and the implications of these solutions for stakeholders.     

Teaching Geriatric Fellows How to Teach: A Needs Assessment Targeting Geriatrics Fellowship Program Directors

The entire healthcare workforce needs to be educated to better care for older adults. The purpose of this study was to determine whether fellows are being trained to teach, to assess the attitudes of fellowship directors toward training fellows to be teachers, and to understand how to facilitate this type of training for fellows. A nine‐question survey adapted from a 2001 survey issued to residency program directors inquiring about residents‐as‐teachers curricula was developed and administered. The survey was issued electronically and sent out three times over a 6‐week period. Of 144 ACGME‐accredited geriatric fellowship directors from geriatric, internal medicine, and family medicine departments who were e‐mailed the survey, 101 (70%) responded; 75% had an academic affiliation, 15% had a community affiliation, and 10% did not report. Academic and community programs required their fellows to teach, but just 55% of academic and 29% of community programs offered teaching skills instruction as part of their fellowship curriculum; 67% of academic programs and 79% of community programs felt that their fellows would benefit from more teaching skill instruction. Program directors listed fellow (39%) and faculty (46%) time constraints as obstacles to creation and implementation of a teaching curriculum. The majority of fellowship directors believe that it is important for geriatric fellows to become competent educators, but only approximately half of programs currently provide formal instruction in teaching skills. A reproducible, accessible curriculum on teaching to teach that includes a rigorous evaluation component should be created for geriatrics fellowship programs.     

Description and Students' Perceptions of a Required Geriatric Clerkship in Postacute Rehabilitative Care

This article describes medical students' evaluation of a geriatric clerkship in postacute rehabilitative care settings. This was a cross-sectional study of fourth-year medical students who completed a mandatory 2-week rotation at a postacute care facility. Students were provided with three instructional methods: Web-based interactive learning modules; small-group sessions with geriatric faculty; and Geriatric Interdisciplinary Care Summary (GICS), a grid that students used to formulate comprehensive interdisciplinary care plans for their own patients. After the rotation, students evaluated the overall clerkship, patient care activities, and usefulness of the three instructional methods using a 5-point Likert scale (1=poor to 5=excellent) and listed their area of future specialty. Of 156 students who completed the rotation, 117 (75%) completed the evaluation. Thirty (26%) chose specialties providing chronic disease management such as family, internal medicine, and psychiatry; 34 (29%) chose specialties providing primarily procedural services such as surgery, radiology, anesthesiology, pathology, and radiation oncology. Students rated the usefulness of the GICS as good to very good (mean±standard deviation 3.3±1.0). Similarly, they rated overall clerkship as good to excellent (3.8±1.0). Analysis of variance revealed no significant group difference in any of the responses from students with the overall clerkship ( F (112, 4)=1.7, P =.20). Students rated the geriatric clerkship favorably and found the multimodal instruction to be useful. Even for students whose career choice was not primary care, geriatrics was a good model for interdisciplinary care training and could serve as a model for other disciplines.     

A national survey on the current status of general internal medicine residency education in geriatric medicine

OBJECTIVES: The dramatic increase in the U.S. elderly population expected over the coming decades will place a heavy strain on the current health care system. General internal medicine (GIM) residents need to be prepared to take care of this population. In this study, we document the current and future trends in geriatric education in GIM residency programs. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: An original survey was mailed to all the GIM residency directors in the United States (N = 390). RESULTS: A 53% response rate was achieved (n = 206). Ninety-three percent of GIM residencies had a required geriatrics curriculum. Seventy one percent of the programs required 13 to 36 half days of geriatric medicine clinical training during the 3-year residency, and 29% required 12 half days or less of clinical training. Nursing homes, outpatient geriatric assessment centers, and nongeriatric ambulatory settings were the predominant training sites for geriatrics in GIM. Training was most often offered in a block format. The average number of physician faculty available to teach geriatrics was 6.4 per program (2.8 full-time equivalents). Conflicting time demands with other curricula was ranked as the most significant barrier to geriatric education. CONCLUSIONS: A required geriatric medicine curriculum is now included in most GIM residency programs. Variability in the amount of time devoted to geriatrics exists across GIM residencies. Residents in some programs spend very little time in specific, required geriatric medicine clinical experiences. The results of this survey can guide the development of future curricular content and structure. Emphasizing geriatrics in GIM residencies helps ensure that these residents are equipped to care for the expanding aging population.     

The current state of geriatric medicine: a national survey of fellowship-trained geriatricians, 1990 to 1998

The rapid growth of the older population has focused national attention on the need for physicians trained in geriatric medicine. To gain insight into the evolving status of the field, with particular focus on career decision-making and academic career development of trainees, we conducted a survey of physicians recently completing geriatric fellowships. The 107 accredited extant geriatric fellowship programs in the United States and Puerto Rico were contacted to identify trainees from 1990 to 1998. A mailed survey addressed relevant career development and training issues. Four hundred ninety out of 787 (62%) physicians responded; 20% completed 1 year and 80% 2 or more years of training. Half made the decision to pursue a career in geriatrics during residency, 27% decided before/during medical school, and a mentor influenced 48%. Currently, 80% have a Certificate of Added Qualifications in geriatric medicine, 69% hold academic appointments, 78% teach, 39% participate in research, and 44% author publications. Most are doing predominantly clinical work in multiple settings. Further analysis of the 1996-to-1998 cohort revealed that those completing fellowships of 2 or more years are more likely to identify all geriatrics as their professional focus, conduct and author research, work with multidisciplinary teams, and participate in professional geriatric societies. This national survey documents career decision-making and the academic and clinical profiles of physicians completing geriatric fellowship training in the past decade. Longer fellowship training is associated with academic career development. Although there is a national need to train clinical geriatricians, the additional need to train and fund future geriatric academic leaders requires increased attention.     

Are Internal Medicine Residency Programs Adequately Preparing Physicians to Care for the Baby Boomers? A National Survey from the Association of Directors of Geriatric Academic Programs Status of Geriatrics Workforce Study

Patients aged 65 and older account for 39% of ambulatory visits to internal medicine physicians. This article describes the progress made in training internal medicine residents to care for older Americans. Program directors in internal medicine residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education were surveyed in the spring of 2005. Findings from this survey were compared with those from a similar 2002 survey to determine whether any changes had occurred. A 60% response rate was achieved (n=235). In these 3-year residency training programs, 20 programs (9%) required less than 2 weeks of clinical instruction that was specifically structured to teach geriatric care principles, 48 (21%) at least 2 weeks but less than 4 weeks, 144 (62%) at least 4 weeks but less than 6 weeks, and 21 (9%) required 6 or more weeks. As in 2002, internal medicine residency programs continue to depend on nursing home facilities, geriatric preceptors in nongeriatric clinical ambulatory settings, and outpatient geriatric assessment centers for their geriatrics training. Training was most often offered in a block format. The mean number of physician faculty per residency program dedicated to teaching geriatric medicine was 3.5 full-time equivalents (FTEs) (range 0-50), compared with a mean of 2.2 FTE faculty in 2002 (P相似文献   

Geriatric education for the physicians of tomorrow

The world's population is aging and there is need for more geriatricians. Current training programs, however, are not producing a sufficient number of geriatricians to meet that need, largely because students and residents lack interest in a career in geriatrics. A variety of reasons have been suggested to explain that lack of interest, and several changes in geriatrics training might increase the number of medical trainees who choose a career in geriatrics. These changes include recruiting medical students who are predisposed to geriatrics, loan forgiveness programs for those who enter careers in geriatrics, increased reimbursement for geriatric care, providing geriatric education to physicians in all specialties throughout their training, and refocusing geriatrics training so it includes the care of healthy vigorous older adults, rather than an exclusive focus on those with debility and chronic or fatal illnesses.     

Improving recruitment into geriatric medicine in Canada: Findings and recommendations from the geriatric recruitment issues study

As the number of Canadians aged 65 and older continues to increase, declining recruitment into geriatric medicine (GM) raises concerns about the future viability of this medical subspecialty. To develop effective strategies to attract more GM trainees into the field, it is necessary to understand how medical students, residents, GM trainees, and specialists make career choices. The Geriatric Recruitment Issues Study (GRIST) was designed to assess specific methods that could be used to improve recruitment into geriatrics in Canada. Between November 2002 and January 2003, 530 participants were invited to complete the GRIST survey (117 Canadian geriatricians, 12 GM trainees, 96 internal medicine residents, and 305 senior medical students). Two hundred fifty-three surveys (47.7%) were completed and returned (from 54 participating geriatricians, 9 GM trainees, 50 internal medicine residents, and 140 senior medical students). The survey asked respondents to rate factors influencing their choice of medical career, the attractiveness of GM, and the anticipated effectiveness of potential recruitment strategies. Although feedback varied across the four groups on these issues, consistencies were observed between medical students and residents and between GM trainees and geriatricians. All groups agreed that role modeling was effective and that summer student research programs were an ineffective recruitment strategy. Based on the GRIST findings, this article proposes six recommendations for improving recruitment into Canadian geriatric medicine training programs.     

Geriatrics fellowship training and the role of geriatricians in older adult cancer care: A survey of geriatrics fellowship directors

ABSTRACT

The number of older adults with cancer is growing, necessitating more collaborative training in geriatric principles and cancer care. The authors administered a web-based survey to U.S. geriatrics program directors (PDs) addressing cancer-specific training and perspectives on optimal training content and roles for geriatricians in cancer care. Of 140 PDs contacted, 67 (48%) responded. Topics considered very important in training included cancer screening (79%) and cancer-related pain management (70%). Respondents strongly agreed that some of the geriatrician’s roles in cancer care included assessing functional status (64%) and assessing physical/cognitive function for goals of care (64%). About one half (54%) agreed that having a standardized geriatric oncology curriculum overall was important. The presence of a geriatric oncologist, requiring cancer-based rotations, being affiliated with a cancer center, or being internal versus family medicine-based did not affect this response. Despite this high level of support, cancer-related skills and knowledge warrant better definition and integration into current geriatrics training. This survey establishes potential areas for future educational collaborations between geriatrics and oncology training programs.     

Teaching of geriatric health in India: Mapping the terrain

ABSTRACT

India is currently undergoing a rapid demographic transition along with a dramatic upsurge in the number of elderly adults. Creating a cadre of specialized health care professionals in geriatric medicine is clearly vital to address the health care needs of this growing population. The authors undertook a mapping of the available academic programs in geriatric health in India and examined their content, duration, architecture, and student intake. A total of 20 programs were identified in geriatric health, thus highlighting a paucity of training options in this field. Compared to Western countries, relatively few programs are offered in clinical and public health geriatrics in India. This is further compounded by an insignificant thrust of geriatrics in undergraduate health professional curricula. Our results underscore the need for a national-level curricular initiative to strengthen and mainstream the teaching of geriatric health in the country. Alternative educational strategies such as blended learning and interprofessional education should be explored to enhance geriatric health workforce competence.     

Capturing the power of academic medicine to enhance health and health care of the elderly in the USA

As in Japan, the US population is aging progressively, a trend that will challenge the health-care system to provide for the chronic, multiple and complex needs of its elderly citizens. and as in Japan, the US academic health enterprise has only belatedly mounted a response to that challenge. Herein is reviewed a quarter of a century of the author's personal experience in developing new programs in gerontology and geriatric medicine from a base in the Department of Internal Medicine at three US academic health centers (AHC): The University of Washington (as Division Head), Johns Hopkins University (as Vice-Chair), and Wake Forest University (as Chair). Rather than to build a program from a new department of geriatrics, this strategy was chosen to capture the power and resources of the department of internal medicine, the largest university department, to 'gerontologize' the institution, beginning with general internal medicine and all of the medical subspecialties (the approach also chosen to date at all but a handful of US AHC). The keystone of success at each institution has been careful faculty development through fellowship training in clinical geriatrics, education and research. Over the same interval major national progress has occurred, including expanded research and training at the National Institute on Aging and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and accreditation of more than 100 fellowship programs for training and certification of geriatricians. However, less than 1% of US medical graduates elect to pursue such training. Hence such geriatricians will remain concentrated at AHC, and most future geriatric care in the USA will be provided by a broad array of specialists, who will be educated and trained in geriatrics by these academic geriatricians.