The development of academic geriatric medicine in the United States 2005 to 2010: an essential resource for improving the medical care of older adults

Academic geriatric medicine programs are critical for training the physician workforce to care effectively for aging Americans. This article updates the progress made by U.S. medical schools from 2005 to 2010 in developing these programs. Academic leaders in geriatrics in accredited allopathic and osteopathic medical schools were surveyed in the winter of 2010 (60% response rate), and results were compared with findings from a similar 2005 survey (68% response rate). Physician faculty in geriatrics increased from 9.6 (mean) full‐time equivalents (FTEs) in 2005 to 11.2 by 2010. In 2010, faculty and staff effort was mostly devoted to clinical practice (mean = 37%) and education (mean = 33%), with only seven responding schools devoting more than 40% of faculty effort to research. Schools that have been designated as Centers of Excellence had a median 20 FTE physician faculty, compared with seven at the other schools (P < .001). In 2010, 27% of medical schools required a geriatrics clerkship, and 87% (n = 83) had an elective geriatric clerkship. In summary, more fellows and faculty were recruited and trained in 2010 than in 2005, and some academic programs have emerged with strong education, research, and clinical initiatives. Medical student exposure to geriatrics curriculum has increased, but few academic geriatricians are pursuing research careers, and the number of practicing geriatricians is declining. New approaches to training the entire physician workforce to care for older adults will be required to ensure adequate medical care for aging Americans.     

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   

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.     

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.     

Health care for older persons in Switzerland: a country profile

Switzerland has the second-most-expensive healthcare system worldwide, with 11.5% of gross domestic product spent on health care in 2003. Switzerland has a healthcare system with universal insurance coverage and a social insurance system, ensuring an adequate financial situation for 96% of the 1.1 million older inhabitants. Key concerns related to the care of older persons are topics such as increasing healthcare costs, growing public awareness of patient autonomy, and challenges related to assisted suicide. In 2004, the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences issued guidelines for the care of disabled older persons. Since 2000, geriatrics has been a board-certified discipline with a 3-year training program in addition to 5 years of training in internal or family medicine. There are approximately 125 certified geriatricians in Switzerland, working primarily in geriatric centers in urban areas. Switzerland has an excellent research environment, ranking second of all countries worldwide in life sciences research-but only 13th in aging research. This is in part due to a lack of specific training programs promoting research on aging and inadequate funding. In addition, there is a shortage of academic geriatricians in Switzerland, in part due to the fact that two of five Swiss universities had no academic geriatric departments in 2005. With more-adequate financial resources for academic geriatrics, Switzerland would have the opportunity to contribute more to aging research internationally and to improved care for older patients.     

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.     

General internal medicine and geriatrics: building a foundation to improve the training of general internists in the care of older adults

Internists--"doctors for adults"--provide most of the medical care given to older Americans, especially those with serious chronic disease. Nonetheless, the United States lacks an adequate physician workforce with mastery in caring for older persons and with expertise in building knowledge about how best to provide this care. This supplement aims to strengthen the physician workforce by fostering incremental and sustained improvements in the training of internal medicine residents in the care of older adults and in the development of geriatrics-oriented general internal medicine faculty. It identifies 3 major barriers to these improvements: lack of adequately trained teachers and mentors, the belief that explicit training in geriatrics has little to offer the generalist, and inadequate funding. Three strategies offer particular promise in overcoming these barriers: engaging directors of internal medicine residency programs, funding centers to promote collaboration between teaching and research programs in general internal medicine and geriatrics, and providing substantial incremental funding on the national level to pay for the time required to care for frail older patients and to teach and do research about this care. The barriers and strategies identified in this supplement may also inform efforts to enhance the skills of practicing physicians and improve training and faculty development in family medicine and other disciplines.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

National survey of geriatric medicine fellowship programs: comparing findings in 2006/07 and 2001/02 from the American Geriatrics Society and Association of Directors of Geriatric Academic Programs Geriatrics Workforce Policy Studies Center

This article documents the development of geriatric medicine fellowship training in the United States through 2009. Results from a national cross-sectional survey of all geriatric medicine fellowship training programs conducted in 2007 is compared with results from a similar survey in 2002. Secondary data sources were used to supplement the survey results. The 2007 survey response rate was 71%. Sixty-seven percent of responding programs directors have completed formal geriatric medicine fellowship training and are board certified in geriatrics, and 29% are board certified through the practice pathway. The number of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited fellowship programs has slowly increased, from 120 (23 family medicine (FM) and 97 internal medicine (IM)) in 2001/02 to 145 in 2008/09 (40 FM and 105 IM), resulting in a 21% increase in fellowship programs and a 13% increase in the number of first-year fellows (259 to 293). In 2008/09, the growth in programs and first-year slots, combined with the weak demand for geriatrics training, resulted in more than one-third of first-year fellow positions being unfilled. The number of advanced fellows decreased slightly from 72 in 2001/00 to 65 in 2006/07. In 2006/07, 55% of the advanced fellows were enrolled at four training programs. In 2008/09, 66% of fellows were international medical school graduates. The small numbers of graduating geriatric medicine fellows are insufficient to care for the expanding population of older frail patients, train other disciples in the care of complex older adults, conduct research in aging, and be leaders in the field.     

Department of Veterans Affairs Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Centers: translating aging research into clinical geriatrics

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Centers (GRECCs) originated in 1975 in response to the rapidly aging veteran population. Since its inception, the GRECC program has made major contributions to the advancement of aging research, geriatric training, and clinical care within and outside the VA. GRECCs were created to conduct translational research to enhance the clinical care of future aging generations. GRECC training programs also provide leadership in educating healthcare providers about the special needs of older persons. GRECC programs are also instrumental in establishing robust clinical geriatric and aging research programs at their affiliated university schools of medicine. This report identifies how the GRECC program has successfully adapted to changes that have occurred in VA since 1994, when the program's influence on U.S. geriatrics was last reported, focusing on its effect on advancing clinical geriatrics in the last 10?years. This evidence supports the conclusion that, after more than 30?years, the GRECC program remains a vibrant "jewel in the crown of the VA" and is poised to make contributions to aging research and clinical geriatrics well into the future.     

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.     

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.     

The Impact of VA's geriatric research, education and clinical centers on academic affiliates

The education mission of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is to train health professionals to benefit VA and the United States. One approach for achieving that mission, along with VA's research and clinical missions, was the establishment of Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Centers (GRECCs) in 1975. These were developed at VA hospital sites that had existing strong partnerships with schools of medicine already engaged in research on aging. GRECCs were funded to enhance those research enterprises, to expand health professions education in geriatrics, to expand interest in geriatrics among medical faculty and to support them to become more expert in geriatrics, to develop new approaches to care of the aging, and to disseminate the lessons learned within VA and beyond. Using 2001 and 2008 data from two surveys of U.S. medical schools' geriatrics programs, this article explores the impact of GRECCs on geriatric programs at their affiliated schools of medicine. It demonstrates how VA's academic mission through GRECCs has benefited VA and its affiliates and how it has benefited the nation through the growth of geriatric medicine as an academic enterprise and a legitimate clinical specialty.     

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.     

In defense of a department of geriatrics

Departmental status for geriatrics offers many advantages, all of which are related to strengthening academic and clinical programs in aging. The training programs and the content of medical school curriculum in geriatrics remain inadequate under the current structures. A department of geriatrics can provide a stronger faculty base and allow effective interaction with other departments (including but not limited to internal medicine) that need geriatric training. A department of geriatrics also focuses on a model of care that involves working closely with other disciplines, such as nursing and social work. This interdisciplinary model helps expert providers work efficiently throughout the spectrum of care, strengthening continuity. The department can include other medical specialists, such as family practitioners, psychiatrists, and physiatrists, who work with caregivers and patients throughout a course of treatment to manage chronic illness and help maintain and enhance function and independence as long as possible. Comprehensive care and proper care management also substantially benefit institutions by expanding the patient population, reducing length of stay, and avoiding unnecessary hospitalization of older patients through effective discharge planning and transitional care. This requires strong relationships with long-term care providers, a characteristic strength of geriatricians. Although not all research in aging needs to be housed in a department of geriatric medicine, the presence of a critical mass of basic and clinical researchers creates an environment that can stimulate new initiatives and attract external funding. Additional research bridging basic translational and clinical phases relevant to the elderly population is best encouraged by maintaining relationships with other basic science and clinical departments.     

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.     

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).