Final report of the FOPE II Pediatric Workforce Workgroup.

From the inception of the Future of Pediatric Education II (FOPE II) Project, it was acknowledged that any discussion of pediatric education would need to encompass a review of the pediatric workforce. This report looks at the current trends in pediatric workforce and draws some conclusions regarding future growth and composition. In addition to looking at demographic trends, ranging from geography to gender, the report explores influences including managed care, telemedicine, and others. Models for determining workforce needs are described and scenarios and projections are discussed. Pediatrics 2000;106(suppl):1245-1255; pediatric workforce.

Pediatric residency education.

OBJECTIVE: On February 1, 1997, new pediatric Residency Review Committee guidelines became effective. Eighteen months later, pediatric residency program directors were queried regarding the implementation of these guidelines. Because both the challenge to implement these guidelines and the opportunities to shape pediatric graduate medical education rest with the program directors, obtaining the feedback and suggestions from this group is seen as the keystone of future planning endeavors. METHODS: A 20-question multiple-choice/opened-ended questionnaire was sent to the 201 members of the Association of Pediatric Program Directors in 2 mailings in August and September 1998. RESULTS: A final response rate of 70% was achieved. Very few program directors reported difficulties in instituting the new residency review committee requirements. The exceptions to this pattern were those requirements pertaining to limitations on time spent in intensive care experience and in the neonatal intensive care unit, wherein 34% of the respondents identified barriers. Although the majority of respondents regarded these requirements as very good or sufficient, some program directors expressed concern regarding insufficient amounts of time available for preparation in intensive care (18%), neonatal intensive care unit (22%), behavioral/developmental pediatrics (16%), and in adolescent medicine (13%). In general, programs have been more successful in defining new competencies than in developing curricula to teach them. The majority of respondents also indicated that their residents' exposure was excellent or satisfactory in all 6 of the following practice settings: private office-based practice for continuity clinic, private office-based practice for outpatient rotation, predominately managed care practice, community clinics for continuity clinic, community clinics for outpatient rotation, and hospital-based practice for continuity clinic. They also indicated that they had no serious concerns about the types of career development assistance offered to residents and the types of follow-up tracking of residents. CONCLUSION: The findings from this survey have reaffirmed the merit of the current system of pediatric residency education. They have also revealed the commitment of program directors to address the complex issues generated by the evolution of health care delivery, and thereby contribute to the optimal provision of pediatric health care now and in the future.

Providing pediatric subspecialty care: A workforce analysis. AAP Committee on Pediatric Workforce Subcommittee on Subspecialty Workforce.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a snapshot of pediatric subspecialty practice, examine issues pertaining to the subspecialty workforce, and analyze subspecialists' perspective on the health care market. BACKGROUND: Before the effort of the Future of Pediatric Education II (FOPE II) Project, very little information existed regarding the characteristics of the pediatric subspecialty workforce. This need was addressed through a comprehensive initiative involving cooperation between subspecialty sections of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other specialty societies. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to all individuals, identified through exhaustive searches, who practiced in 17 pediatric medical and surgical subspecialty areas in 1997 and 1998. The survey elicited information about education and practice issues, including main practice setting, major professional activity, referrals, perceived competition, and local workforce requirements. The number of respondents used in the analyses ranged from 120 (plastic surgery) to 2034 (neonatology). In total, responses from 10 010 pediatric subspecialists were analyzed. RESULTS: For 13 of the subspecialties, a medical school setting was specified by the largest number of respondents within each subspecialty as their main employment site. Direct patient care was the major professional activity of the majority of respondents in all the subspecialties, with the exception of infectious diseases. Large numbers of subspecialists reported increases in the complexity of referral cases, ranging between 20% (cardiology) and 44% (critical care), with an average of 33% across the entire sample. In all subspecialties, a majority of respondents indicated that they faced competition for services in their area (range: 55%-90%; 71% across the entire sample); yet in none of the subspecialties did a majority report that they had modified their practice as a result of competition. In 15 of the 17 subspecialties, a majority stated that there would be no need in their community over the next 3 to 5 years for additional pediatric subspecialists in their discipline. Across the entire sample, 42% of respondents indicated that they or their employer would not be hiring additional, nonreplacement pediatric subspecialists in their field in the next 3 to 5 years (range: 20%-63%). CONCLUSION: This survey provides the first comprehensive analysis to date on how market forces are perceived to be affecting physicians in the pediatric subspecialty workforce. The data indicate that pediatric subspecialists in most areas are facing strong competitive pressures in the market, and that the market's ability to support additional subspecialists in many areas may be diminishing.