ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Leadership positions in academic medicine lack racial and gender diversity. In 2016, the Council of Academic Family Medicine (CAFM) established a Leadership Development Task Force to specifically address the lack of diversity among leadership in academic family medicine, particularly for underrepresented minorities and women. APPROACH: The task force was formed in August 2016 with members from each of the CAFM organizations representing diversity of race, gender, and academic position. The group met from August 2016 to December 2017. The task force reviewed available leadership development programming, and through consensus identified common pathways toward key leadership positions in academic family medicine-department chairs, program directors, medical student education directors, and research directors. consensus development: The task force developed a model that describes possible pathways to several leadership positions within academic family medicine. Additionally, we identified the intentional use of a multidimensional mentoring team as critically important for successfully navigating the path to leadership. CONCLUSIONS: There are ample opportunities available for leadership development both within family medicine organizations and outside. That said, individuals may require assistance in identifying and accessing appropriate opportunities. The path to leadership is not linear and leaders will likely hold more than one position in each of the domains of family medicine. Development as a leader is greatly enhanced by forming a multidimensional team of mentors.
Subject(s)
Family Practice , Leadership , Faculty, Medical , Female , Humans , Mentors , Minority GroupsABSTRACT
Primary care is a crucial part of a functional health care system, though in many parts of the world there are current or projected gaps in the primary care physician workforce. The academic family medicine organizations in the United States (US) developed the "Four Pillars for Primary Care Physician Workforce," a model built on decades of research, highlighting four main areas of emphasis for increasing primary care physician output: 1) pipeline; 2) process of medical education; 3) practice transformation; and 4) payment reform. This commentary proposes that this model, although developed in the US context, is applicable in other medical education settings, including Israel, based on the recently reported findings of Weissman and colleagues in this journal.
Subject(s)
Physicians, Primary Care , Students, Medical , Career Choice , Family Practice , Israel , Physicians , Primary Health Care , Specialization , United StatesABSTRACT
Beginning in 2020, all residency programs will be accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Programs accredited by the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) that do not achieve ACGME pre-accreditation status by 2020 will be forced to close, resulting in loss of graduate medical education slots and affecting the physician workforce locally and nationally. Current ACGME programs are in a position to help consult, support, and learn from local AOA-only programs as they work toward meeting ACGME accreditation requirements, but to date there have been only limited collaborations. A regional network of ACGME- and dually accredited family medicine residency programs ("the Network") and family medicine programs solely accredited by the AOA recognized the imperative to support the AOA-only programs with their accreditation transitions to preserve their primary care residency positions. This article describes the inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes of these collaborative efforts to establish communications and strategies using a logic model program "road map" format. Initial efforts included a collaborative conference and ongoing consultations and workshops. This model can be replicated for program collaborations in other locations.
Subject(s)
Accreditation , Internship and Residency/standards , Alaska , Logic , Models, Theoretical , Northwestern United States , Osteopathic Medicine/education , Societies, MedicalSubject(s)
Advisory Committees , Biomedical Research/organization & administration , Capacity Building , Family Practice/organization & administration , Fellowships and Scholarships , Learning , Canada , Family Practice/education , Humans , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , United StatesSubject(s)
Career Choice , Physicians, Primary Care/economics , Staff Development , Students/psychology , Family Practice , Humans , WorkforceABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Between August 2013 and April 2014, eight family medicine organizations convened to develop a strategic plan and communication strategy for how our discipline might partner with patients and communities to build a new foundation for American health care. An outline of this initiative, Family Medicine for America's Health (FMAHealth), was formally announced to the public in October 2014. The purpose of this paper and the five papers to follow is to describe the guiding principles of FMAHealth in greater detail. FMAHealth is taking place at a pivotal point in the history of American health care, when the deficiencies of our overly expensive, underperforming health care delivery system are becoming more apparent than ever. By forming strategic partnerships to implement this initiative, family medicine seeks to define a new approach to health system leadership, care delivery, education, and research. This will require substantial reorientation of existing priorities and reimbursement systems, which are focused on delivering services, instead of on improving health. Family medicine is committed to engaging and empowering patients, their families and communities, and other health care professionals to establish a more equitable, effective, and efficient delivery system--a system in which health is the primary design element and the "Triple Aim" is the guiding principle.
Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Family Practice/organization & administration , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Community-Institutional Relations , Cost Control , Delivery of Health Care/economics , Delivery of Health Care/standards , Family Practice/economics , Family Practice/standards , Health Education/organization & administration , Humans , Insurance, Health, Reimbursement , Interprofessional Relations , Leadership , Mental Health , Patient-Centered Care/organization & administration , Primary Health Care/economics , Primary Health Care/standardsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Collaborating with patients, families, and communities is a core principle of family medicine. However, the health care system in the United States has grown increasingly complex, fragmented, and difficult to navigate. This system, focused on disease-specific care delivered by specialists, often treats patients as the objects of care rather than as partners in care. Family Medicine for America's Health (FMAHealth) offers an opportunity to challenge the status quo in collaborative care through enhanced patient outreach and community engagement. With a central focus on improving health and achieving the Triple Aim, the FMAHealth initiative recognizes that successful transformation of the US health care system requires collaborative partnerships between clinicians, patients, families, and communities. Patient and population-level outcomes can be improved through shared decision making; application of new technology; and authentic partnerships with patient, families, and communities. Broader collaboration in practice transformation, research, and policymaking can lead to identification of common goals and mutually embraced transformation. The discipline of family medicine aspires to encourage patients, families, and communities to demand change as consumers, as citizens, and as voters.
Subject(s)
Community Participation , Cooperative Behavior , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Family Practice/organization & administration , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Community-Based Participatory Research/organization & administration , Community-Institutional Relations , Family , Health Education/organization & administration , Health Policy , Humans , Information Systems , Needs Assessment/organization & administration , Patient Participation , Residence Characteristics , United StatesSubject(s)
Primary Health Care , Referral and Consultation , Specialization , Telemedicine , Cooperative Behavior , PhysiciansSubject(s)
Family Practice/organization & administration , Health Care Reform/organization & administration , Interdisciplinary Communication , Quality of Health Care/organization & administration , Health Plan Implementation , Humans , Societies, Medical/organization & administration , United StatesSubject(s)
Family Practice , Societies, Medical , Goals , Humans , Organizational Objectives , United StatesABSTRACT
Improving patient outcomes in community-based settings is the goal of both the Clinical Translational Science Award program and practice-based quality improvement (QI) programs. Given this common goal, integrating QI and outcomes research is a promising strategy for developing, implementing, and evaluating clinical interventions. This article describes the challenges and strengths illuminated by the conduct of a combined research/QI study in a nascent practice-based research network. Challenges include research's exclusion of clinic patients who might benefit from the intervention; QI programs' less uniform approach to intervention implementation; and the need for both academic and clinically relevant products and publications. A major strength is the increased likelihood of both engaging clinical practices in research and developing successful clinical interventions. Required elements for success include identification of enthusiastic clinical research "champions," involvement of researchers with clinical experience, and adequate funding to support both research and clinical resources and dissemination. Combined Ql/research projects in the practice-based research environment have the potential to improve and shorten the cycle from good idea to improved clinical outcomes in real-world settings.
