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.     

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

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

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.     

The National Institute for Program Director Development: a school for program directors

BACKGROUND: The role of residency program director is unique in medicine and medical education. Most program directors learn the job through trial and error, with a fortunate few benefiting from the wisdom and experience of their predecessors and mentors. In 1994, the Association of Family Practice Residency Directors (AFPRD) made the development of training and support resources for program directors a top priority. METHODS: With the support of the strategic plan of the AFPRD, the focus on excellence in residency education by the ABFP, and a survey documenting need, the National Institute for Program Director Development (NIPDD) was formed, with its sentinel product, a school for family practice residency directors. RESULTS: A fellowship-format 9-month training program was constructed using a multidimensional educational model. To date, there have been more than 300 participants. The curriculum emphasizes leadership development, resource allocation, a thorough familiarity with regulations and standards, educational options, and personnel management skills. A follow-up survey in 1999 documented an increase in program director tenure and an overall positive impact on family practice residency programs. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced preparation for the job of residency program director results in a positive impact on both the director and the program.     

Training in Firearm Safety Counseling in Family Practice Residency Programs

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

Colposcopy practice and training in family practice residency programs.

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

Family Medicine Spokane Rural Training Track: 24 years of rural-based graduate medical education

Twenty percent of the US population lives in rural communities, but only about 9% of the nation's physicians practice in those communities. There is little doubt that the more highly specialized physicians are, the less likely they are to practice or settle in rural areas. There is clearly a population threshold below which it is not feasible for specialist (in contrast to generalist) physicians to pursue the specialty in which they have trained. Much of rural America falls below that threshold. This leaves large geographic areas of America to the primary care physician. The proportional supply of family physicians to specialists increases as urbanization decreases. Family physicians are the largest single source of physicians in rural areas. Family medicine residency programs based in rural locations provide a critical mechanism for addressing rural primary care needs. Graduates from rural residency programs are three times more likely to practice in rural areas than urban residency program graduates. There are two primary goals of training residents in rural areas: producing more physicians who will practice in rural areas and producing physicians who are better prepared for the personal and professional demands of rural practice. Rural Training Tracks, where the first year of residency is completed in an urban setting and the second and third years at a rural site (1-2 model), initially proposed by Family Medicine Spokane in 1985, have been highly successful in placing and maintaining more than 70% of their graduates in rural communities. Similar and modifications of the "Spokane RTT model" have been established around the country. Now, more than 24 years of educational experience has been accumulated and can be applied to further development of these successful family medicine residency programs.     

Success strategies for departments of family medicine.

Strong departments of family medicine in academic medical centers help assure the future scope and quality of family practice patient care, the ongoing evolution of family medicine as a scholarly discipline, and a continued flow of qualified medical school graduates into family practice residency programs and eventually into practice. This report presents key strategies of six successful departments of family medicine and describes the methods and skills considered important by the leaders of these departments. Common themes that emerge are (1) recruit and mentor the best faculty, (2) build a reputation for clinical excellence of faculty and residents, (3) become part of schoolwide curriculum activities, (4) establish a scholarly presence, and (5) develop networks of support.     

Community medicine in the training of family physicians.

Family practice residency programs are encouraged to include community medicine training in their curriculum, but there is little agreement as to what community medicine is or what would constitute appropriate training. Community medicine is most commonly defined as a discipline concerned with the identification and solution of health care problems of communities or other defined populations. The inclusion of training experiences in the identification and solution of health care problems of communities has two basic advantages for family practice residency programs: it fosters a contextual approach in the care of individual patients and it builds knowledge and skills for those who will work with communities in future practices. An example of curricular content is included. A survey was conducted in order to determine what residency programs teach in the field of community medicine. The results show that few of the responding programs include the areas which most clearly relate to community medicine. It is hoped that the report of these results, the rationale presented for including community medicine in the training of family physicians, and the suggested outline of curricular content will further encourage and assist family practice residency programs to incorporate such training in their curricula.     

Firearm Injury Prevention Training in Preventive Medicine Residency Programs

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

Introduction of handheld computing to a family practice residency program

BACKGROUND: Handheld computers are valuable practice tools. It is important for residency programs to introduce their trainees and faculty to this technology. This article describes a formal strategy to introduce handheld computing to a family practice residency program. METHODS: Objectives were selected for the handheld computer training program that reflected skills physicians would find useful in practice. TRGpro handheld computers preloaded with a suite of medical reference programs, a medical calculator, and a database program were supplied to participants. Training consisted of four 1-hour modules each with a written evaluation quiz. Participants completed a self-assessment questionnaire after the program to determine their ability to meet each objective. RESULTS: Sixty of the 62 participants successfully completed the training program. The mean composite score on quizzes was 36 of 40 (90%), with no significant differences by level of residency training. The mean self-ratings of participants across all objectives was 3.31 of 4.00. Third-year residents had higher mean self-ratings than others (mean of group, 3.62). Participants were very comfortable with practical skills, such as using drug reference software, and less comfortable with theory, such as knowing the different types of handheld computers available. CONCLUSION: Structured training is a successful strategy for introducing handheld computing to a residency program.     

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.     

Geriatrics in family practice residency education: an unmet challenge

The aging of the US population poses one of the greatest future challenges for family practice residency graduates. At a time when our discipline should be strengthening geriatric education to address the needs of our aging population, the Group on Geriatric Education of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine believes that recent guidelines from important family medicine organizations suggest that our discipline's interest in geriatric education may be waning. Barriers to improving geriatric education in family practice residencies include limited geriatric faculty, changes in geriatric fellowship training, competing curricular demands, and limited diversity of geriatric training sites. Improving geriatric education in family practice residencies will require greater emphasis on faculty development and integration of geriatric principles throughout family practice residency education. The Residency Review Committee for Family Practice should review the Program Requirements for Residency Education to ensure that geriatric training requirements are consistent with current educational needs. The leadership of family medicine organizations should collaboratively address the need for continued improvement in training our residents to care for older patients and the chronically ill.     

A survey of students who chose Family Practice residencies

This paper presents the results of questionnaires sent to medical students at Wayne State University who chose family practice residency programs. It discusses three main areas: (1) choice of family practice as a specialty, (2) choice of a particular family practice residency program, and (3) future plans. Role models, the student's family, student membership in the American Academy of Family Physicians, the student's hometown, and Family Practice Club meetings were all important factors in the decision to become a family physician. The current residents' opinions of their program, the residency director, the quality of the current residents, and the location of the program were rated as quite important in the choice of a particular residency program. Most residents served their residency in their home state. Economic factors and university affiliation were not felt to be influential in program choice. A typical student plans to pursue family practice in a group that employs physician's assistants or nurse practitioners. He/she would also like to practice in his/her home state in either a rural area or a small city. Very few students were interested in either solo practice or academic family medicine.     

Experiences with a combined residency in internal and preventive medicine

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

The National Area Health Education Center Program and Primary Care Residency Training

The Area Health Education Center (AHEC) program was established in 1972 to improve the supply, distribution, retention and quality of primary care and other health practitioners in medically underserved areas. Through academic/community partnerships, regional AHECs offer a broad array of educational programs for students, residents and practicing health professionals. With primary care medical education a core part of AHEC programs, AHECs have been involved in decentralized residency training from the outset, with particular attention to family medicine. This paper provides an overview of the national AHEC program, its core components and its support for primary care residency training. Although AHECs have achieved considerable success in training primary care physicians for their respective states, continued refinements of programs are needed to address the needs of the most rural and underserved communities.     

Fetal alcohol syndrome: knowledge and attitudes of family medicine clerkship and residency directors

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD) are the leading preventable causes of developmental disabilities with serious permanent consequences. Regardless of the increased awareness of fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), 13% of women in the United States drink alcohol during pregnancy. Health care professionals do not routinely assess the frequency and quantity of alcohol use by their patients. This study examined the knowledge, skills, and practices of family medicine residency and clerkship directors and assessed the time devoted and format of FAS curricula in the programs. A self-administered anonymous survey was sent to the residency and clerkship directors (N = 571). Response rate of clerkship directors was 52% and residency directors 46%. Both groups showed high level of knowledge of FASD and of alcohol counseling practices for pregnant women. Although almost two thirds of the residency programs had FASD integrated in the curriculum, an equivalent fraction of predoctoral programs did not. More than half of the clerkship directors without FASD in their curriculum agreed that a need exists for its inclusion. These findings raise important medical education and policy issues and provide insight into the disparity in FASD content of curricula between predoctoral and family medicine residency programs in the United States. The role of physician counseling in primary prevention of FAS should continue to be stressed in predoctoral and residency education.     

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.     

Teaching disease management care: a senior resident seminar and team project model

To address the six general competencies outlined by the Accreditation Councilfor Graduate Medical Education, family practice residency programs will need to enhance their future curriculum. This paper describes one approach to teaching three of these core competencies (practice-based learning and improvement, interpersonal and communication skills, and systems-based practice), while enhancing the quality of patient care within the model family practice center Resident involvement in and feedback on this pilot curriculum was positive, and the residents were confident in the skills they developed.     

A comprehensive collaborative patient safety residency curriculum to address the ACGME core competencies

CONTEXT: Patient safety currently receives only scant attention in most residency curricula. Safety is a subject that transcends the US Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's 6 core competencies. OBJECTIVE: To design and implement a new patient safety curriculum in collaboration with the Schools of Nursing and Pharmacy, in such a way as to address all 6 competencies. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The curriculum applies to a university-based family medicine residency programme with 45 residents at 5 sites, including urban, suburban and rural sites. CURRICULUM DESIGN: The curriculum includes introductory workshops for faculty and residents, a series of didactic courses, individual portfolios and a series of small group exercises including chart reviews, case presentations and a longitudinal quality improvement project. The activities are run by a multidisciplinary team. OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcome measures include assessment of resident performance in curriculum activities and in an annual objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) that includes standardised patient interviews, simulations and a written examination. Programme evaluation will include comparison of OSCE performance with that at a neighbouring residency. RESULTS: Residents identified safety problems and system-based solutions using a safety journal. Cases of polypharmacy were identified using journals and chart reviews, and medication changes proposed and discussed. At resident practice sites, residents identified safety priorities based on a staff survey and proposed system-based solutions. Results of the OSCE will be presented elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS: A new patient safety curriculum was successfully introduced into a family medicine residency. The curriculum integrates patient safety into residents' daily activities and incorporates input from the disciplines of nursing and pharmacy so as to help build more effective clinical teams and inculcate a culture of safety.