Obstetric care among family physicians in Pennsylvania. Trends, association with residency training, and policy implications

A study was designed to investigate the status of obstetric practice by Pennsylvania family physicians and its relationship to family practice residency training. A 50% probability sample of all family and general physicians and of all graduates of Pennsylvania family practice residency programs was surveyed by mail. Ten percent of Pennsylvania family physicians and general practitioners reported currently practicing obstetrics, 44% of whom said they planned to stop within 3 years. Telephone survey information from nonresponders suggests that even fewer (5%) of the state's family physicians may actually be practicing obstetrics. Family practice residency training, postresidency obstetric training, and small community size were the best predictors of current obstetric practice. Family physicians in the smallest communities, however, were also those most likely to be planning to stop, and graduates of residency programs were increasingly choosing not to practice obstetrics. Cost of liability insurance and fear of lawsuits were primary reasons cited for stopping obstetrics. Family physicians have been major providers of obstetric care in the nation's rural areas. Now, increasingly firm evidence that fewer family physicians are practicing obstetrics signals increasing shortages in obstetric care for women in rural communities. Changes in the practice climate and obstetric training programs for family physicians seem essential to help reverse these trends.     

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 Role of the Medical School in Rural Graduate Medical Education: Pipeline or Control Valve?

Although rural-based graduate medical education is critically important in the training of competent rural family physicians, the number of physicians selecting these programs is highly dependent on what happens earlier in the pipeline, i.e., during medical school. Using the experience and outcomes research from Jefferson Medical College's Physician Short-age Area Program, as well as from published literature describing six other medical school programs with similar goals, this paper addresses the important role of these programs in substantially increasing the number of physicians interested in rural family practice. Although each of these programs differs in its structure, all contain three core features: a strong institutional mission; the targeted selection of students likely to practice in rural areas, predominantly those with rural backgrounds; and a focus on primary care, especially family practice. Outcomes show that all seven programs have been highly successful. Medical schools, therefore, can have a major impact on the number of rural physicians they produce by acting not only as a pipeline or conduit to residency programs, but also as a control valve, beginning as early as the admissions process. In order to maximize their impact on the supply and training of rural family physicians, rural residency programs should understand, support, collaborate with and help develop medical school programs whose mission is to provide rural physicians.     

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.     

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.     

Contractual arrangements between residency programs and HMOs.

BACKGROUND. Although one out of seven health maintenance organizations (HMOs) is directly involved in graduate medical education (GME), either as an accredited sponsoring organization or through a contractual agreement with an academic medical center or teaching hospital to serve as an ambulatory rotation site, relatively little is known about the extent to which HMOs have provider contracts with faculty or residents of GME programs. Such provider contracts are not agreements to collaborate on the education of residents, but rather contractual arrangements under which individual physicians or groups (who happen to be residents or faculty) agree to provide services to HMO enrollees in return for some form of compensation. METHODS. In 1990, the Group Health Association of America conducted a survey of a sample of residency training programs in family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics to ascertain the extent to which (1) residents and faculty of residency training programs are participating physicians in HMOs; and (2) HMO enrollees are serving as the patient base for GME in ambulatory settings. RESULTS. Overall, 42% of the residency program respondents indicated that they contract with HMOs to provide services to enrollees. Nearly two thirds (64%) of family practice programs have provider contracts as compared with 28% of pediatrics programs and 24% of internal medicine programs. Provider contracts with independent practice associations are by far the most common, followed by group, network, and staff model contracts, in that order. CONCLUSIONS. It is apparent that provider contractual arrangements between HMOs and primary care residency programs are quite common, especially in the area of family practice. These contractual arrangements have probably resulted in a more predictable and stable patient revenue base for residency programs. The long-term effects on provider practice styles and the financing of graduate medical education are less clear.     

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.     

The University of Missouri Rural Obstetric Network: creating rural obstetric training sites for a university-based residency program

This paper describes a rural obstetric experience that was developed for a university-based family practice residency program and designed to increase the number of deliveries per resident, the number of graduates practicing in rural areas, and the number of graduates doing obstetrics. Rural hospitals can be a source of deliveries for residency training programs. This rural obstetric experience also offers more training months in a rural setting and more months training with family physicians.     

A Strategy to Increase the Number of Urban Family Practice Resident Physicians Who Enter Rural Practice

Physician geographic maldistribution is a problem in the United States health care system. Innovative strategies are needed to entice resident family physicians training in the larger, more numerous suburban and urban training programs to practice in rural areas upon completing their training. This paper describes a strategy used at St. Elizabeth Medical Center Family Practice Residency Program, Dayton, OH, to encourage rural practice. In the St. Elizabeth plan, the interested family practice resident moonlights in a rural practice provided by the local county hospital. The county medical staff covers the resident physician's practice during the frequent absences. The residency program faculty provide on-site supervision, telephone back-up coverage, and practice consultation. The county hospital provides billing services; the resident physician retains 100 percent of collections. The resident physician gains exposure to the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed in rural practice. Upon completion of residency training, the physician remains in practice and is not required to pay back any expenses incurred by the hospital. Two resident physicians participate currently; three others have expressed interest in practicing in the community. A similar plan might work in parts of the United States where, like Ohio, training programs and rural communities are not far apart.     

Practice location as a function of medical school and residency location: implications for resident selection

Numerous studies have documented an association between the state in which a physician practices and prior education in that state. To determine whether this relationship exists for recent family practice residency graduates, 95 randomly selected programs in which residents completed training in 1979 were surveyed to obtain information regarding practice location and medical school location for their graduates. Seventy-nine percent of physicians completing residency and medical school in the same state also practiced in that state. Of those completing residency in a state other than that of their medical school, 43 percent stayed in the state of their residency to practice, and 22 percent returned to the state of their medical school. An analysis of the impact that a policy restricting house staff positions to in-state students would have on physician supply for the state reveals that only about 10 percent more physicians would be expected to start practice in a state if such a policy were implemented.     

Geriatric medicine training for family practice residents in the 21st century: a report from the Residency Assistance Program/Harfford Geriatrics Initiative

Increasing the quality and quantity of geriatric medicine training for family practice residents is a particular challenge for community-based programs. With support from the John A. Hartford Foundation of New York City, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) implemented in 1995 a multi-part project to improve the amount and quality of geriatric medicine education received by family practice residents. This report summarizes the initial results of the regional geriatric medicine curriculum retreats for residency directors. The goals of the retreats were to build recognition among the residency directors of the skills that future family physicians will require to be successful providers of primary care to older adults and to allow the residency directors to identify and develop solutions to barriers to improving geriatric medicine training for residents. Forty-six program directors participated in the three retreats between February 2000 and February 2001. The participants represented 52 programs and rural tracks in all geographic regions, small and large programs, and urban and rural settings. The program directors developed a consensus on the geriatric medicine knowledge, skills, and attitudes that should be expected of all family practice residency graduates; developed a list of basic, required educational resources for each family practice residency program; and proposed solutions to common obstacles to successful curriculum development.     

Family physicians in university hospital intensive care units

Although physicians in most family practice residency programs hospitalize their patients at community hospitals, those in 21 programs in the United States hospitalize patients exclusively at university hospitals. Through a questionnaire mailed to directors of each of these programs, it was learned that family practice residency faculty have medical intensive care (ICU) privileges at 38 percent of these university hospitals. No family physicians had ever been denied ICU privileges at any of these hospitals. Mandatory consultations were reported by only a minority of programs. At 62 percent of these university hospitals, family physicians do not have ICU privileges. However, no family physician had every made a formal application for them. Intensive care patients at these hospitals were generally cared for by specialists and house staff in internal medicine or critical care.     

Forensic training in family practice residencies

Knowledge and skill in forensic medicine are important in primary care not only for defensive purposes but also because of potential therapeutic value in patient care. The major role in future mental health services envisioned for primary care physicians makes such training especially important. A national survey of family practice residency programs reveals that 47 percent of programs do not address forensic aspects of medical practice. A model forensic medicine curriculum is described that would require minimal adjustment of existing programs. The need for inclusion of forensically qualified clinicians in training programs for primary care physicians is evident.     

Comparative content of three family practice residency programs.

A method of collecting physician-patient encounter data is described and applied to the comparison of the clinical content of residents' experiences in the family practice office. Comparisons were made of over 1,000 consecutive unselected encounters in each of the three family practice residency programs. Considerable differences between the patients encountered by the three programs were observed and between program patients and patients attending family physicians in Iowa. It is important to monitor the demography and diagnostic status of patients attending family practice residency programs to ensure the authenticity of the residents' experience.     

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.     

Family care in a family practice group.

A fundamental claim of family medicine is that the family physician treats the "whole" family--an ideological principle that guides undergraduate and residency education. Using archival data obtained from a random sample of 500 patients in one group of family physicians, this study analyzed the extent to which this principle is carried out in practice. Physicians trained in family practice residency programs were compared with their colleagues. Family types and marital stability were also examined. Results indicate that in only 28 percent of families (excluding single person households) were all family members seen by the same family physician. This occurred despite the high preponderance and stability of traditional nuclear families in the practice. There was no significant difference in this rate between graduates and nongraduates of approved family practice residency programs.     

Surgical practice and perceived training needs of selected Ohio family physicians

This study was performed to determine, relative to Ohio, what percentage of family physicians are actively involved in providing surgical care, what types of surgical care are provided, and what variations exist in opinions and practices regarding surgery related to previous training and practice location. Data were collected from active members of the Ohio Academy of Family Physicians; usable returns were secured from 76 percent of the members. Several conclusions were made. Overwhelming percentages of family physicians in Ohio are actively involved in providing surgical care. A considerably greater percentage of family physicians are actively involved in performing minor surgery compared with major surgery, although they perform a wide range of minor and major surgical procedures at relatively high frequencies. Over the years, however, there has been a decrease in performance of major surgery on the part of family physicians in Ohio. Issues related to surgery in family practice are more positively influenced by being in a rural practice rather than an urban or suburban practice, having had more surgical training, and having had family practice residency training. Family physicians in Ohio definitely think that surgical training should be included in family practice training programs, and they think that the surgical training should be balanced between a curriculum standardized for all residents and one individualized to the anticipated future practices of the residents.     

Graduate education in family practice: a ten-year review.

Assessment of the progress of graduate education in family practice after ten years shows that the original goals established for residency training in this specialty are being effectively met. There are now more than 360 approved family practice residencies in the United States with over 6,000 residents in training. Student interest in these programs has remained at a high level, and attrition has been low. Graduates of these programs have favored partnership and group family practice, and are well distributed in rural, suburban, and metropolitan areas. Heavy emphasis has been placed upon quality control mechanisms for both internal and external review of family practice residency programs. This paper outlines some concerns regarding the present status of family practice residencies, and suggests some directions for future development of these programs.     

Continuity of care in a family practice residency program.

Continuity of care, one of the basic characteristics of family medicine, was studied over a 12-month period in a family practice residency program. Continuity was measured in three contact areas; office hours, after hours, and on the inpatient service. The intensity of continuity was defined at three levels, from encounters with the personal physician to those with physicians on other medical teams. Continuity was further assessed in relation to family encounters. Third year residents averaged 83 percent continuity with their individual patients and 70 percent with their assigned families. Residents from other years were noted to have lower levels of continuity. Similar figures were noted for family practice inpatients. Continuity of care in private practice occurs in about 80 percent of patient encounters and it seems reasonable and feasible to expect residency training programs to come close to this figure.