Preparing the health care workforce to care for adults with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.

In the United States, one in nine people ages sixty-five and older and one-third of people ages eighty-five and older have Alzheimer's disease. The number of cases of Alzheimer's disease is projected to triple by 2050, from 5.0 million in 2013 to 13.8 million. This will challenge the health care workforce, which is already inadequate in both size and training. We assessed what is likely to be an increasing shortage of physicians, nurses, and social workers with specialized training in geriatrics and, more specifically, in the care of people with dementia. We highlight the limited training of health care professionals in best practices of dementia care and chronic disease management. To address these shortfalls, we recommend the dissemination of team-based models of care that integrate health and social services; expansion of education loan forgiveness and faculty development programs to attract students into clinician-educator careers focusing on Alzheimer's disease; inclusion of curricula specific to the disease in all health professions training; expansion of federal programs to train existing workers; and increased compensation for the direct care workforce.

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.

The Donald W. Reynolds Consortium for Faculty Development to Advance Geriatrics Education (FD~AGE): a model for dissemination of subspecialty educational expertise.

PURPOSE: Most U.S. medical schools and training programs lack sufficient faculty expertise in geriatrics to train future physicians to care for the growing population of older adults. Thus, to reach clinician-educators at institutions and programs that have limited resources for enhancing geriatrics curricula, the Donald W. Reynolds Foundation launched the Faculty Development to Advance Geriatrics Education (FD~AGE) program. This consortium of four medical schools disseminates expertise in geriatrics education through support and training of clinician-educators. The authors conducted this study to measure the effects of FD~AGE. METHOD: Program leaders developed a three-pronged strategy to meet program goals: FD~AGE offers (1) advanced fellowships in clinical education for geriatricians who have completed clinical training, (2) mini-fellowships and intensive courses for faculty in geriatrics, teaching skills, and curriculum development, and (3) on-site consultations to assist institutions with reviewing and redesigning geriatrics education programs. FD~AGE evaluators tracked the number and type of participants and conducted interviews and follow-up surveys to gauge effects on learners and institutions. RESULTS: Over six years (2004-2010), FD~AGE trained 82 fellows as clinician-educators, hosted 899 faculty scholars in mini-fellowships and intensive courses, and conducted 65 site visits. Participants taught thousands of students, developed innovative curricula, and assumed leadership roles. Participants cited as especially important to program success expanded knowledge, improved teaching skills, mentoring, and advocacy. CONCLUSIONS: The FD~AGE program represents a unique model for extending concentrated expertise in geriatrics education to a broad group of faculty and institutions to accelerate progress in training future physicians.

National survey of geriatric psychiatry 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.

OBJECTIVE: : To document the development of geriatric psychiatry (GP) fellowship training in the United States through 2008. METHODS: : A cross-sectional survey of the 56 U.S. GP fellowship programs was conducted in summer 2007. Longitudinal data from the American Medical Association and the Association of American Medical Colleges' National Graduate Medical Education Census and data from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education were also analyzed. RESULTS: : Thirty-seven (66%) of 56 program directors responded. The number of fellowship programs has decreased over the past 7 years. During 2006/07, 72 fellows were in training, as compared with 94 fellows in 2001/02. Application rates declined significantly with a mean of 4.3 applications per program in 2006/07 as compared with the mean of 10 applications per program in 2001/02. The fill rate for first-year GP fellowship positions dropped from 61% in 2001/02 to 48% in 2006/07. During 2006/07, 67% of programs reported having two or fewer first-year fellows and 16% had no first-year fellows. Seventeen programs reported having no United States medical school graduates as first-year fellows. CONCLUSION: : The number of GP fellows in training has declined by 23% from 2001/02 to 2006/07. This decline has occurred at the same time when the number of older adults continues to expand rapidly. It is critical that an adequate number of geriatric psychiatrists be trained to support and educate general psychiatrists in the care of the elderly. Specific strategies need to be developed urgently to stimulate interest in careers in clinical and academic GP.

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.

Rural-urban distribution of the U.S. Geriatrics physician workforce.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the distribution of geriatricians across the rural-urban continuum from 2000 to 2008 and to compare with primary care physicians in 2008. DESIGN: County-level analysis of physician data from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile for 2000, 2004, and 2008 merged with U.S. Census data on the number of older (≥65) county residents. Descriptive statistics for each year were stratified according to 2003 Rural Urban Continuum Codes (RUCCs). SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians in the United States. MEASUREMENTS: Number of physicians per county elderly population. RESULTS: The number of self-identified geriatricians nationwide increased from 5,157 to 7,412 from 2000 to 2008. The number of geriatricians increased in each RUCC level, with nearly 90% of geriatricians residing in urban areas in all years. In 2008, the number of geriatricians per 10,000 older adults declined as rurality increased (from 1.48 in the most-urban areas to 0.80 in the most rural). General internal medicine physicians are more plentiful in urban counties and declined as rurality increased (from 27.29 to 3.85 per 10,000 older adults in 2008). In contrast, family physicians were more evenly distributed with the elderly population across the rural-urban continuum (22.02 to 14.27 per 10,000 older adults in 2008). CONCLUSION: Small numbers of geriatricians combined with a growing elderly population poses a challenge and an opportunity. Healthcare systems and policy-makers will need to modify care models to better use the skill of geriatricians in concert with other providers to provide quality care for older rural and urban Americans.

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.

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.

Influencing public policy to improve the lives of older Americans.

Aging of the U.S. population raises numerous public policy issues about which gerontological researchers, policy experts, and practitioners have much to contribute. However, the means by which aging-related public policy is influenced are not always apparent. Drawing on experience working in the U.S. Senate and other settings as Health and Aging Policy Fellows, the authors outline the formal and informal processes by which public policy is shaped in the U.S. Congress. Many who seek to influence public policy do so by telling legislators what they want. A less obvious path to policy influence is for gerontologists to offer their expertise to legislators and their staff. The authors provide specific recommendations for how gerontologists can establish productive and ongoing relationships with key legislative players. The authors also emphasize the importance of collaboration with advocacy groups and with local and state stakeholders to advance aging-related public policy to improve the lives of older Americans.

Geriatrics education in psychiatric residencies: a national survey of program directors.

OBJECTIVE: The authors describe the current characteristics of geriatrics training within general psychiatry training programs. METHODS: In the fall of 2006, a survey was mailed and made available online to all U.S. psychiatric residency program directors (N=181). RESULTS: The response rate was 54% (n=97). Of the responding psychiatry programs, 96% (n=93) required a clinical experience in geriatrics, with a mean of 54.9 half days of required clinical training. The predominant training sites were inpatient geriatric psychiatry acute care units, ambulatory care experiences precepted by one or more geriatric psychiatrists, and outpatient geriatric psychiatry assessment centers. The mean number of physician faculty per residency program available to teach geriatrics was 2.8 full-time equivalents, and the mean number of physicians certified in geriatric psychiatry was 3.2 per program. Conflicting time demands with other curricula was ranked as the most significant barrier to expanding geriatrics training. CONCLUSION: Variability in the amount of time devoted to geriatrics training exists across general psychiatric residency programs. Some residents spend very little time in specific required geriatric psychiatry clinical experiences and have limited exposure to well-trained geriatric psychiatrists. Therefore, some psychiatrists who will take care of older patients in the future may be ill prepared to do so.

Changing the course of geriatrics education: an evaluation of the first cohort of Reynolds geriatrics education programs.

PURPOSE: To describe geriatric training initiatives implemented as a result of Reynolds Foundation grants awarded in 2001 (and concluding in 2005) and evaluate the resulting structure, process, and outcome changes. METHOD: Cross-sectional survey of program directors at 10 academic institutions augmented by review of reports and secondary analyses of existing databases to identify structural and process measures of curriculum implementation, participation rates, and students' responses to Association of American Medical Colleges Medical School Graduation Questionnaires about geriatrics training. RESULTS: All 10 institutions reported structural changes, including newly developed or revised geriatric rotations or courses for their trainees. Most used online Internet educational materials, sent students to new training venues, incorporated geriatric case discussions, implemented standardized patients, and used digital media. On average, each institution trained more than 1,000 medical students, 500 residents, 100 faculty, and 700 nonfaculty community physicians during the award period. Reynolds institutions also provided geriatrics training across 22 non-primary-care disciplines. Eight schools implemented formal faculty development programs. By 2005, students at Reynolds-supported schools reported higher levels of geriatrics/gerontology education and more exposure to expert geriatric care by the attending faculty compared with students at non-Reynolds schools. Innovations and products were disseminated via journal publications, conference presentations, and the Portal of Geriatric Online Education. CONCLUSIONS: The investment of extramural and institutional funds in geriatrics education has substantially influenced undergraduate, graduate, and practicing physician education at Reynolds-supported schools. The full impact of these programs on care of older persons will not be known until these trainees enter practice and educational careers.

Which patients benefit the most from a geriatrician's care? Consensus among directors of geriatrics academic programs.

Given the anticipated limited availability of geriatricians for the foreseeable future, how should the geriatrician's specialized clinical skills be deployed to optimally benefit the health of our aging population? Directors of geriatrics academic programs (DGAPs) at all 145 U.S. allopathic and osteopathic medical schools were asked this question as part of a winter 2007 on-line survey. The DGAPs were to indicate the types of patients who would most benefit from a geriatrician's services in three practice situations: primary care, consultations, and care in the hospital. The survey response rate was 74.5%. There was high consensus among the DGAPs on the benefits of having a geriatrician care for the most complex and vulnerable older adults in primary care and hospital settings. There was slightly less consensus as to when geriatrics consultations are beneficial. The patient subsets that were viewed as benefiting the most from geriatrician care were aged 85 and older, frailty, geriatric syndromes, severe functional impairment, and complexity. The results of this survey suggest that, because of the predicted shortage of geriatricians, the DGAPs would target geriatricians to work with the most vulnerable older adults. These findings offer the beginning of a consensus statement as to the role of geriatricians in the continuum of American medical care.

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

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

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

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).

A national survey of family medicine residency education in geriatric medicine: comparing findings in 2004 to 2001.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We compared findings from this 2004 survey with our 2001 survey to determine progress in family medicine residency programs' efforts to better train residents to care for America's aging population. METHODS: A survey was mailed and made available on-line to all 470 family medicine residency directors in the United States. RESULTS: The response rate was 71%. Ninety-six percent of family medicine residencies have a required geriatrics curriculum, compared to 92% in 2001. There was a significant increase in the number of required lecture hours in geriatrics in 2004 as compared to 2001. Since 2001, the median number of MD geriatrics faculty per program has nearly doubled from .5 full-time equivalent (FTE) to .9 FTE. Conflicting time demands with other curricula was ranked as the most significant barrier to geriatrics education in both 2004 and 2001. However, in 2001, the attitude of residents was listed as a significant barrier by 32.1% of the program directors as compared to just 3.6% in 2004. CONCLUSIONS: Family medicine educators are continuing to improve the training of residents to provide state-of-the-art care for the aging population. Faculty must take advantage of this period of experimentation in residency education to identify best practices for geriatrics education.

ACGME requirements for geriatrics medicine curricula in medical specialties: progress made and progress needed.

In the recent past, most physician visits by older adults were with a primary care physician, with less than 40% of ambulatory visits to other specialists. Since 1991, that trend has reversed. In 2001, 53% of ambulatory visits by patients aged 65 years or older were to nonprimary care specialists. Demographic trends and an expanding geriatrics medicine knowledge base require that every physician develop skills specific to the care of older adults. There are concerns that physicians-in-training are not learning adequate specific geriatrics medicine content to prepare them for the rapidly expanding numbers of older adults who will be seeking medical care. Training standards to prepare residents and fellows for practicing medicine are established by experts in the various medical specialties serving on individual residency review committees (RRCs) of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. In 2002 (with a follow-up in 2003), the Association of Directors of Geriatric Academic Programs' team at the University of Cincinnati School of Medicine's Institute for Health Policy and Health Services Research reviewed all 91 nonpediatric specialties' RRC program requirements to identify the specific curriculum requirements related to geriatrics medicine training. As of 2003, 27 of the 91 RRC-accredited specialties have specific geriatrics training requirements; the other 70% of these specialties did not specifically mention geriatrics training. Even among the specialties with specific geriatrics training requirements, curriculum expectations are modest. The geriatrics-specific descriptions within the program requirements of the 27 specialties are presented in this article. The authors encourage the RRCs for all nonpediatric specialties to update their program requirements to ensure that future physicians graduating from their graduate medical education programs are adequately prepared to care for older adults.

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.

Geriatric medicine fellowship programs: a national study from the Association of Directors of Geriatric Academic Programs' Longitudinal Study of Training and Practice in Geriatric Medicine.

This report documents the development and growth of geriatric medicine fellowship training in the United States through 2002. A cross-sectional survey of geriatric medicine fellowship programs was conducted in the fall 2001. All allopathic (119) and osteopathic (7) accredited geriatric medicine fellowship-training programs in the United States were involved. Data were collected using self-administered mailed and Web-based survey instruments. Longitudinal data from the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Association of American Medical Colleges' (AAMC) National Graduate Medical Education (GME) Census, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), and the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) were also analyzed. The survey instrument was designed to gather data about faculty, fellows, program curricula, and program directors (PDs). In addition, annual AMA/AAMC data from 1991 to the present was compiled to examine trends in the number of fellowship programs and the number of fellows. The overall survey response rate was 76% (96 of 126 PDs). Most (54%) of the PDs had been in their current position 4 or more years (range: <1-20 years), and 59% of PDs reported that they had completed formal geriatric medicine fellowship training. The number of fellowship programs and the number of fellows entering programs has slowly increased over the past decade. During 2001-02, 338 fellows were training in allopathic programs and seven in osteopathic programs (all years of training). Forty-six percent (n = 44) of responding programs offered only 1-year fellowship-training experiences. PDs reported that application rates for fellowship positions were stable during the academic years (AYs) 1999-2002, with the median number of applications per first year position available in AY 2000-01 being 10 (range: 1-77). In 2001-02, data from the AMA/AAMC National GME Census indicated a fill rate for first-year geriatric medicine fellowship positions of 69% (259 first-year fellows for 373 positions). During 2001-02, more than half of programs (53%) reported having two or fewer first-year fellows, whereas 31% had three or four first-year fellows. Thirty-three programs (36%) reported having no U.S. medical school graduate first-year fellows, and another 25 (28%) reported having only one. Of the 51 programs offering second-year fellowship training, PDs reported 61 post-first-year fellows (median 1, range: 0-7). During the past 10 years, 27 new allopathic geriatric medicine fellowship programs opened; there are now 119 programs. There are also seven osteopathic programs. The recruitment of high-quality U.S. medical school graduates into these programs remains a challenge for the discipline. Furthermore, the retention of first-year fellows for additional years of academic training has been difficult. Incentives will be needed to attract the best graduates of U.S. family practice and internal medicine training programs into academic careers in geriatric medicine.