Preventive medicine residents: a national survey.

Little is known about those physicians who pursue graduate medical education in preventive medicine, including aerospace medicine, general preventive medicine and public health, and occupational medicine. We surveyed resident physicians about their academic background, financial environment, clinical activities, and professional goals. A total of 147 residents (30%) responded from a population of 498 residents. The data suggest a lack of available information about preventive medicine training and careers among medical students who subsequently pursue such training. Their economic environment is extremely diverse, with a wide range of salary, "moonlighting" hours, educational loans, and service obligations. Although the median annual salary ($24,700) is similar to the national average resident salary, 32% of respondents earned less than $20,000, and 95% have educational debts averaging $30,900. Sixty-two percent of respondents perform clinical work in their residency, whereas 76% desire future clinical work as part of their practice. This gap is most pronounced in general preventive medicine and public health. The residents express a wide range of interests in future practice of preventive medicine; 54% are interested in government work, and 33% desire academic careers.     

Graded exercise stress test training in family practice and internal medicine residencies

A mail survey of upper Midwest family practice and internal medicine residency program directors was performed to determine the prevalence and characteristics of exercise stress test training. Two mailings provided a 68% response rate for the 184 programs surveyed. Internal medicine programs were significantly more likely to offer exercise stress test training than family practice programs (57% vs 34%). Overall, an estimated 31% of family practice and internal medicine residency graduates are performing exercise stress tests in their practice. Programs provided an average of 7.3 hours of didactic instruction and 32.7 stress tests per resident. A minority (43%) had an established minimum number of exercise stress tests recommended for competency. Programs with and without exercise stress test training did not differ significantly with respect to age, size of program, or size of community. There were some interstate differences in the extent of exercise stress test training provided by family practice residency programs. Internal medicine programs were more likely to require a minimum number of treadmill tests. Otherwise there were few differences between family practice and internal medicine program instruction in exercise stress test training. Family practice program directors were more likely to believe that their residents should be taught this procedure and to include family physicians in their panel of instructors. Specific guidelines should be created to assure adequate stress test training for interested residents.     

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.     

The preventive medicine physician: a national study

Following the 1980 Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee report, postal questionnaires were sent to a random sample of physicians self-designated as preventive medicine specialists primarily in an effort to verify the committee's assumption that preventive medicine is not a clinical specialty. The questionnaires represented each of the preventive medicine subspecialties: general preventive medicine, public health, occupational medicine, and aerospace medicine. After three reminders, 419 out of 942 (44%) responded. Seventy percent of the physicians who responded engage in clinical activities for at least part of their workweek. Preventive medicine is practiced in a wide variety of settings. For the majority of preventive medicine physicians, prevention plays an important role in their practice. They perceive that they practice medicine differently from their colleagues who are not preventive medicine specialists because of their prevention focus. Many of these physicians have made career changes, and some have made many such changes, as board certification in one of the subspecialties does not preclude practice in another subspecialty. The specialty appears to allow considerable flexibility. The preventive medicine physician is prepared to incorporate prevention into clinical practice and seems well equipped to integrate community and individual clinical approaches.     

Community service by North Carolina family physicians

BACKGROUND: Community service is an integral part of American society. Although Family Medicine advocates community service through community medicine, few data exist on family physicians' involvement in voluntary community service activities or roles as community advocates. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to 489 North Carolina family physicians, including a 20% random sample of those in community practice and all statewide faculty physicians. The survey assessed types and amount of volunteer activity, attitudes toward volunteer work, and factors that support or inhibit participation in community service. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 54%. Most respondents reported strong interests in community service before medical school and residency, yet few reported any relevant training during medical education. More than 85% of faculty and community practice family physicians reported participating in volunteer service in the previous year (70.8 mean hours for faculty vs 45.5 mean hours for community practice; P = .06). Family physicians also reported a wide variety of lifetime volunteer activities (mean number of different faculty physician activities 20.8 vs mean number of different community practice physician activities 16.7, P = .00). Less than 50% of both physician groups reported that their practice or program publicly supports those performing community service. CONCLUSIONS: The great majority of family physicians in North Carolina regularly participate in one or more volunteer community service activities, frequently without organizational recognition. Data about the scope of service expected by communities and provided by physicians may assist the discipline in clarifying the place of volunteer community service in medical education, promotion guidelines and practice.     

More physicians in public health: less public health work?

AIM: The object was to assess changes in work priorities in local public health medicine in Norway over the period from 1994 to 1999. METHODS: Two cross-sectional studies were undertaken of physicians working in local public health medicine in all Norwegian municipalities, using a postal questionnaire. RESULTS: Half of the physicians working in public health in 1999 were recruited after 1994. Although the number of physicians working in public health increased from 505 in 1994 to 555 in 1999 (10%) an estimation of the total weekly hours worked decreased by 3.7% from 8,715 hours in 1994 to 8,386 hours in 1999. The vast majority of physicians worked in combined posts (87%), and they reduced their engagement in public health by 2.6 hours on average from 1994 to 1999. The reduction depended on remuneration model, speciality in community medicine, and municipality size. CONCLUSIONS: Local public health in Norway was under pressure in the 1990s. For public health physicians, preventive medicine lost out to clinical work. No promising signals of change in the professional or political framework or in incentives for public health work are seen.     

A threat to the public health workforce: evidence from trends in preventive medicine certification and training

Evidence of a growing need for preventive medicine specialists is the congruence between needed competencies for practice in the current health care environment, as identified by the Council on Graduate Medical Education (COGME) and in other national reports, and the core competencies of preventive medicine residents. The total number of certified specialists in preventive medicine is 6091. The proportion of self-designated preventive medicine specialists among all U.S. physicians is on the decline and the greatest decline has been among those in public health (PH) and general preventive medicine (GPM). In addition, the total number of preventive medicine residents is on the decline, and the decline has been greatest among those training in PH and combined PH/GPM. One of the reasons for this decline has been inadequate funding due to the absence of Medicare graduate medical education (GME) financing for population-based vs. individual patient care services and meager and diminishing Title VII support. A paucity of faculty is apparent in medical schools with residency training and board certification in preventive medicine. Several actions may help reverse this trend and assure adequate numbers of preventive medicine specialists: expansion of Title VII to increase the number of residents receiving stipends and tuition, adding infrastructure support for faculty development and funding of demonstration projects in distance learning and in joint generalist/ preventive medicine residency training. Medicare GME reform should include recognition of population-based services and inclusion of preventive medicine residencies in provisions for "nonhospital-based" training and in up-weighting methodologies for primary care training. Expansion of Veterans Affairs, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and Department of Defense support is also needed as is attention to resident debt reduction.     

Preparing for managed care: family practice residents and capitated care in community health centers

This article examines the financial impact on patients of family practice residents when a community health center (CHC) serving as a residency training site is converted to a capitated payment system. The costs in this analysis included using and educating family practice residents at CHCs, the cost of patient encounters at CHCs, and the cost of contracted capitated services. These costs were measured against capitated per member per month (pmpm) payments received by the CHC. If capitated patients were cared for by residents, the CHC would lose $8.42 pmpm. The CHC faced a $5.98 pmpm loss if it used staff physicians rather than residents. This analysis suggests there are educational costs associated with training physicians in capitated health care delivery systems. Family practice residencies and CHCs must prepare for the conversion to capitated systems; academic centers with managed care contracts must control patient encounter costs and utilization to remain competitive.     

Preventive practicum training in healthcare organizations. The Meharry model.

BACKGROUND: Practicum training for preventive medicine residents often occurs in agencies whose community is geographically defined and whose governance is closely linked to public election. We were unsure about the financial ability of such departments to support training and are concerned that over-reliance on traditional health departments might not be best for either medically indigent populations or preventive medicine. We, therefore, sought to apply a public health model--based on a strategic partnership between nursing and preventive medicine--to a large health care organization. The result was formation of a mini-health department, suitable for fully accredited preventive medicine practicum training, within the Alvin C. York Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Murfreesboro, TN. This Center serves a defined population of 21,594 patients and about 1600 employees. The theoretical framework for the new department was based on demonstration of a close fit between the competencies expected of preventive medicine physicians by the American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM) and activities required by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). Because of JCAHO requirements, many healthcare organizations already pay for preventive medicine services. CONCLUSIONS: By placing preventive medicine training faculty into existing budget slots at our institution, systemwide personnel costs for prevention decreased by about $36,000 per year, even as personnel funding for preventive medicine physicians increased from about $24,000 to $376,000 per year. Moreover, there was dramatic, sustained improvement in 17 indicators of preventive care quality as determined by an external peer review organization. In addition to providing a new venue for training, this model may also improve the quality and reach of preventive services, decreased fixed costs for service delivery, and yield new employment opportunities for preventive medicine physicians.     

A survey of Massachusetts physicians' smoking intervention practices

Attitudes toward smoking intervention, and the intervention practices of 65 residents, 51 attending physicians, and 292 community physicians in central and western Massachusetts were assessed through a mailed questionnaire. Nearly all physicians reported that they obtained information on the smoking status of new patients and told smokers to quit. Proportionately fewer physicians, however, reported that they counseled their patients on how to stop smoking; those who did, did so for relatively brief periods of time. After differences in physician age and smoking status were controlled for, residents were significantly more likely than attending physicians to counsel their patients on how to stop smoking, but were also more likely (than attending and community physicians) to recommend or refer their patients to formal smoking cessation programs. A small percentage of the physicians responding (3%-16%) reported that they were prepared to counsel smokers, but most reported that information on where to refer patients, smoking cessation techniques, and skills training would be of great value. The results of this survey suggest practical differences between residents and attending and community physicians in approaching patients who smoke and in attitudes toward the need for additional skills and financial and organizational assistance.     

The AMA Residency Training in Adolescent Preventive Services Project: report of the working group. The American Medical Association.

PURPOSE: To improve resident education in provision of adolescent preventive health care. The American Medical Association (AMA) Residency Training in Adolescent Preventive Services Project Working Group convened to identify specific goals and objectives (G&Os) for pediatric and family medicine resident education in adolescent clinical preventive services and recommend strategies to achieve these G&Os. METHODS: Iterative review process involving members of the working group, nine experienced teaching faculty and 16 resident physicians from family medicine and pediatric training programs, and an advisory board. RESULTS: We achieved consensus on appropriate G&Os for pediatric and family medicine residency education in adolescent clinical preventive services. Faculty and residents expressed concerns about achieving G&Os because of challenges to implementing effective training and evaluation strategies. Suggestions for achieving G&Os included development of an adolescent clinical preventive services curriculum and evaluation program that could be adapted for use in a variety of training program structures. Faculty and residents anticipated the success of a training curriculum would be influenced by: (a) availability of adequate numbers of skilled teaching faculty; (b) availability of time and support for faculty development and teaching efforts; and (c) exposure of residents to adequate numbers of adolescent patients in settings where there are clear expectations for delivery of comprehensive preventive services. CONCLUSIONS: The AMA Residency Training in Adolescent Preventive Services Project Working Group presents G&Os for organizing training experiences in adolescent clinical preventive services in family medicine and pediatric residency training programs and recommends strategies to achieve these G&Os.     

Why does teaching research skills to family medicine trainees make sense?

There are only a few countries in Europe that have incorporated research skills training in specialty training programmes. In the eyes of most practising family physicians, research traditionally is a field reserved for colleagues with academic ambitions; an activity that often is not associated with the clinical practice of family medicine. However, residents became aware that research is essential to improving healthcare provision. Research in family medicine has a long tradition. Performing or taking part in research projects opens new horizons to present and future family physicians and provides support to increase their self-esteem. Consequently, this could foster future family medicine development. The authors urge the whole family physician community to raise the awareness every single family physician towards teaching and learning research skills in specialty training and basic medical education as a generic subject.     

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.     

社会工作理念方法融入全科医师规范化培训的探讨

全科医学教育是全科医学发展的核心,我国多数医学院校临床医学教育本科阶段并未细分全科医学专业,全科住院医师规范化培训是现阶段全科医学教育的重点之一。全科医学强调“生理-心理-社会”为一体的全人关怀,社会工作作为一门社会科学,其理念方法与全科医学在目标、内容、功能、作用等方面具有趋同性、相似性、互补性和互促性。探讨从教育理念、课程设置、考核标准、管理体系等四个维度将社会工作理念方法融入全科住院医师规范化培训,丰富全科住培内涵建设,有利于帮助全科住培医师提升服务质量和医疗职业道德等水平。     

Restructuring the Ikeda City school urinary screening system: report of a screening survey

Background

Even though Japan faces serious challenges in women’s health care such as a rapidly aging population, attrition of obstetrical providers, and a harsh legal climate, few family medicine residency training programs in Japan include training in obstetrics, and the literature lacks research on women’s views of intra-partum pregnancy care by family physicians.

Findings

In this exploratory study, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with five women who received their admission, intrapartum, delivery and discharge care from family medicine residents in the obstetrics ward of a community training hospital. Four women had vaginal births, and one had a Cesarean section. Three were primiparous, and two multiparous. Their ages ranged from 22–33. They found value in family physician medical knowledge and easy communication style, though despite explanation, some had trouble understanding the family physician’s scope of work. These women identified negative aspects of the hospital environment, and wanted more anticipatory guidance about what to expect physically after birth, but were enthusiastic about seeing a family doctor after discharge.

Conclusions

These results demonstrate the feasibility of family medicine residents providing inpatient birth care in a community hospital, and that patients are receptive to family physicians providing that care as well after discharge. Women’s primary concerns relate mostly to hospital environment issues, and better understanding the care family physicians provide. This illustrates-areas for family physicians to work for improvements.     

Why pregnancy care should be an essential part of family medicine training

Some family medicine educators are arguing to eliminate pregnancy care as a required component of family medicine training since the majority of family physicians no longer perform deliveries, and many programs are having increasing difficulties in meeting this training requirement. The primary benefit of pregnancy care training is not to produce family physicians who all perform deliveries but to produce family physicians who are competent to provide comprehensive primary care to women and girls, including routine and preventive reproductive care. The training in pregnancy care helps to differentiate family medicine residencies from other primary care training programs by facilitating competency in a wide range of reproductive health care for nonpregnant women and for the primary nonreproductive health care of pregnant and postpartum women. Residencies offering pregnancy care services also enhance their ability to train residents in child care. Family medicine should continue to strive to improve this aspect of residency training instead of abandoning it.     

Training and application of community-oriented primary care (COPC) through family medicine in Catalonia, Spain

The community-oriented primary care (COPC) approach, implemented in various countries by family physicians, general practitioners, and other primary care workers, integrates clinical medicine with aspects of public health. A process of 20 years of training health professionals (40-hour workshop) by the professional association of family physicians (Catalan Society of Family and Community Medicine), training family medicine residents and giving support to health teams in Catalonia, Spain, generated a present group of 30 primary care teams involved in community health projects. This paper describes and analyzes factors related to changes in the health system, the role of family medicine in Spain, and to features of the COPC approach and its training methods as elements that narrow the gap between training and practice.     

Training of aerospace medicine physicians

In the U. S. there are 23 recognized medical specialty boards. One of these is preventive medicine. Within preventive medicine there are three areas: Aerospace Medicine, Occupational Medicine, and Public Health/General Preventive Medicine. The preventive medicine specialties have a common core of required training including biostatistics, epidemiology, health services administration and environmental health. These, plus associated topics are covered during year one of training. Year two of training involves clinical rotations specifically tailored to the eye, ear, heart, lungs and brain, plus flight training to the private pilot level, and a Masters Degree research project for the required thesis. During year three the physicians in aerospace medicine practice full-time aerospace medicine in a NASA or other government laboratory or a private facility. To date, more than 40 physicians have received aerospace medicine training through the Wright State University School of Medicine program. Among these are physicians from Japan, Australia, Taiwan, Canada and Mexico. In addition to the civilian program at Wright State University, there are programs conducted by the U. S. Air Force and Navy. The Wright State program has been privileged to have officers from the U. S. Army, Navy and Air Force. A substantial supporter of the Wright State program is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and a strong space component is contained in the program.     

Postgraduate preventive medicine: Where do we stand today

It appears that the specialty of preventive medicine is declining as a viable specialty, with inadequate numbers of practitioners and with a declining number of physicians entering residency training programs. However, additional data are needed to make rough estimates of the level of need in the future. Even without that data, we must begin to address the potential shortage in trained manpower, because there is a trend that cannot be ignored pointing to a potential shortage. Several points must be pursued. All medical students must be exposed to the excitement we all feel about preventive care. Our teaching programs in medical schools must be strengthened to assure that there is rigor in these programs and that the potential of preventive medicine is conveyed. It is imperative to examine the field to discover why so many of our self-designated specialists in preventive medicine are not board-certified. Obviously one reason could be that a hungry job market is taking individuals who have not been trained in preventive medicine; another reason could be that for some reason specialists in the field of preventive medicine may feel that board-certification is not necessary for their career goals. This issue raises many questions about the importance of academic training in preventive medicine. It also points to the importance of addressing mid-career training needs on the part of those self-designated specialists. The question of financing must be addressed as well. Efforts must be developed to assure that the preventive field is reimbursed by major third-party payors, Medicare and Medicaid. Perhaps through these reimbursement mechanisms a way could be found to provide, at least in part, resident stipends. In addition, other mechanisms must be developed to provide support for residents in training in preventive medicine. If as a people we are to fulfill our potential of healthiness and achieve the Objective For Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, we must have trained personnel to do the job.     

Factors in the physician practice location puzzle: a survey of New York State residency-trained family physicians.

BACKGROUND: For the past 5 years fewer medical students have selected primary care specialties, and one-third of all physicians have indicated they will move in the next 5 years. These two factors make family physicians one of the most recruited specialties in medicine. METHODS: A questionnaire about practice profiles and factors that have an impact on a physician's location decision was mailed to all physicians who graduated from New York State family medicine residencies between 1970 and 1989. Data from completed responses were analyzed by year of graduation from residency, community size, and whether the responder remained in New York State or chose to locate outside New York State. RESULTS: There were 711 (46 percent) physicians who responded. The number of minorities remained stable at 14 percent during these years, but women graduates increased from 12 percent to 21 percent. The graduates in the 1980s, when compared with those in the 1970s, were more likely to be salaried, make less money, and to believe employment for the physician's spouse to be important in practice location. The 38 percent of responders from communities of fewer than 25,000 were less likely to be salaried, were more likely to practice in a group, worked more hours, offered a broader range of services including obstetrics, made less money, and placed less importance on availability of hospital consultants. Extended family, previous negotiated obligations, and geographic or climate issues were the reasons 64 percent of out-of-state responders gave for leaving New York. Spouse's opinion, hospital consultants, hospital services, colleague interaction, and after-hours coverage were most frequently rated as important factors for family physician practice location. CONCLUSIONS: Factors important in attracting new physicians to a community include the spouse's opinion, institutional and colleague support, and lifestyle issues.