Final report of the FOPE II Education of the Pediatrician Workgroup.

This report from the FOPE II Education of the Pediatrician Workgroup assesses the current status and future trends of pediatric education. The attributes of each level of the education process (undergraduate, residency, fellowship, continuing medical education [CME]) are considered within the framework of lifelong learning. The pediatric education of nonpediatrician providers is carefully considered. The Workgroup proposes and describes a new model for pediatric education that encompasses educational needs assessment, curriculum development and outcomes evaluation. Particular attention is paid to CME, with a review of the strengths and problems of the current system. The proposal for improving CME in the 21st century highlights the need for each pediatrician to have a "CME home," and several models and scenarios are explored. Appendices summarize the results of several surveys conducted on behalf of the Workgroup, and list societal trends and advances in pediatric health care that will influence pediatric education in the future. Pediatrics 2000;106(suppl):1175-1198; pediatric education, educational needs assessment, curriculum development, outcomes evaluation.

Final report of the FOPE II Pediatric Generalists of the Future Workgroup.

The Future of Pediatric Education II (FOPE II) Project was a 3-year, grant-funded initiative, which continued the work begun by the 1978 Task Force on the Future of Pediatric Education. Its primary goal was to proactively provide direction for pediatric education for the 21st century. To achieve this goal, 5 topic-specific workgroups were formed: 1) the Pediatric Generalists of the Future Workgroup, 2) the Pediatric Specialists of the Future Workgroup, 3) the Pediatric Workforce Workgroup, 4) the Financing of Pediatric Education Workgroup, and 5) the Education of the Pediatrician Workgroup. The FOPE II Final Report was recently published as a supplement to Pediatrics (The Future of Pediatric Education II: organizing pediatric education to meet the needs of infants, children, adolescents, and young adults in the 21st century. Pediatrics. 2000;105(suppl):161-212). It is also available on the project web site at: This report reflects the deliberations and recommendations of the Pediatric Generalists of the Future Workgroup of the Task Force on FOPE II. The report looks at 5 factors that have led to changes in child health needs and pediatric practice over the last 2 decades. The report then presents a vision for the role and scope of the pediatrician of the future and the core attributes, skills, and competencies pediatricians caring for infants, children, adolescents, and young adults will need in the 21st century. Pediatrics 2000;106(suppl):1199-1223; pediatrics, medical education, children, adolescents, health care delivery.

Final report of the FOPE II Pediatric Subspecialists of the Future Workgroup.

The report of the Pediatric Subspecialists of the Future Workgroup of the Second Task Force on Pediatric Education reviews the critical changes of the past 2 decades that have affected the provision of pediatric subspecialty services, education of pediatric health care providers, and the acquisition and application of new knowledge. The report considers the future needs that will determine the ability of pediatric subspecialists to meet identified goals. Recommendations for change in the education, role, and financing of the pediatric subspecialist are reported together with those of other workgroups. Pediatrics 2000;106(suppl):1224-1244; pediatric subspecialist, pediatric subspecialist workforce, education pediatric subspecialist, research pediatric subspecialist.

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.

Final report of the FOPE II Financing of Pediatric Education Workgroup.

Some of the challenges of financing pediatric medical education are shared with all medical education; others are specific to pediatrics. The general disadvantage that funding of graduate medical education (GME) is linked to reimbursement for clinical care has uniquely negative consequences for freestanding children's hospitals because they therefore receive little Medicare GME support. This represents both a competitive disadvantage for such hospitals and an aggregate federal underinvestment in children's health care that now amounts to billions of dollars. The need to subsidize medical student and subspecialty education with clinical practice revenue jeopardizes both activities in pediatric departments already burdened by inadequate reimbursement for children's health care and the extra costs of ambulatory care. The challenges of funding are complicated by rising costs as curriculum expands and clinical education moves to ambulatory settings. Controversies over prioritization of resources are inevitable. Solutions require specification of costs of education and a durable mechanism for building consensus within the pediatric community. Pediatrics 2000;106(suppl):1256-1269; medical student education, continuing medical education, medical subspecialties, children, pediatrics, health maintenance organizations, managed care, hospital finances, children's hospitals.

Practice of pediatric pulmonology: results of the Future of Pediatric Education Project (FOPE)

In 1996, the Future of Pediatric Education (FOPE) Project of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) developed surveys to describe the nature of pediatric practices, recent trends in clinical practice, and anticipated workforce needs for both pediatric generalists and pediatric sub-specialists. A survey was specifically developed to describe the features of pediatric pulmonology as self-reported by pediatric pulmonologists. The survey was distributed to members of the AAP Pulmonology Section, the Pediatric Assembly of the American Thoracic Society, and certified pediatric pulmonologists recognized by the American Board of Pediatrics. Of the 535 respondents (67% of those invited to respond), the responses of 388 certified and 94 trained but not board-certified pulmonologists were included in the results. The characteristics of certified and non-certified respondents were the same for most survey questions. Clinical activities occupy 73 +/- 29% of professional time. Most pulmonologists work in urban, inner city, or suburban settings and 85% are affiliated with a medical school. One third are in private practice. As a group, research activities occupy less than 15% of their time. Most pediatric pulmonologists maintain a referral practice and use physician extenders to provide care. Patients with asthma and cystic fibrosis comprise 60-70% of patient volume. Both the volume and complexity of patients are increasing, as is competition for pediatric sub-specialty services. Pediatric pulmonary practices vary in size and in volume of patients that they manage in various settings. Forty percent of respondents identify allergists and other pediatric pulmonologists as sources of competition. Sixty-nine percent of respondents do not believe that there is a current need for additional pediatric pulmonologists in their respective communities. Only 15% of respondents plan to retire in the next decade.

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.