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.

Geriatric psychiatry fellowship programs in the United States: findings from the Association of Directors of Geriatric Academic Programs' longitudinal study of training and practice.

OBJECTIVE: The authors document the development and growth of geriatric psychiatry fellowship training in the United States (U.S.) through 2002. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of the 62 U.S. geriatric psychiatry fellowship programs was conducted in Fall 2001. They also analyzed longitudinal data from the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Association of American Medical Colleges' (AAMC) National Graduate Medical Education (GME) Census, along with data from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). RESULTS: Forty-six (74%) of 62 training directors (TDs) responded. The number of fellowship programs has slowly increased over the past 7 years. During 2001-2002, a total of 94 fellows were in training (all years of training). Seventy-eight percent (N=36) of responding programs offered only 1-year fellowship training experiences. TDs reported that application rates for fellowship positions were stable during the academic years 1999-2002, with a median number of eight applications per program for first-year positions in 2001-2002. The fill-rate for first-year geriatric psychiatry fellowship positions dropped from 84% in 1999-2000 to 61% in 2001-2002. During 2001-2002, 73% of programs reported having two or fewer first-year fellows, and 16% had no first-year fellows. Seventeen programs reported having no U.S. medical school graduates (USMGs) as first-year fellows. CONCLUSION: Recruiting high-quality USMGs into geriatric psychiatry fellowship programs remains a challenge. Furthermore, retaining first-year fellows for additional years of academic training has been difficult. Findings indicate that specific strategies need to be developed to stimulate undergraduate and graduate interest in careers in clinical and academic geriatric psychiatry.

Academic geriatric programs in US allopathic and osteopathic medical schools.

CONTEXT: By 2030, 20% of the US population will be older than 65 years compared with 12.4% in 2000. The development of geriatric medicine research and training programs to prepare for this increasing number of older individuals is largely dependent on the successful establishment of academic geriatric medicine programs in medical schools. OBJECTIVE: To assess the structure, resources, and activities of academic geriatric medicine programs in US allopathic and osteopathic schools of medicine. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Survey distributed to the academic geriatric medicine leaders of the 144 US allopathic and osteopathic medical schools in March 2001. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Organizational structure, program information, curriculum, budgetary issues, and characteristics of academic geriatric medicine leaders. RESULTS: A total of 121 program directors (84%) responded. Most schools (87%) had an identifiable academic geriatric program structure, with 67% established after 1984. The greatest proportion of faculty and staff time (40%) was spent in clinical practice, followed by research and scholarship (12%), residency and fellowship education (10% each), and medical student education (7.8%). Clinical practice accounted for the greatest portion (27%) of revenue, and 25.7% of the programs had total annual budgets of less than $250,000, while 11% had budgets of greater than $5 million. The largest obstacles to achieving the goals of an academic geriatric medicine program were a lack of research faculty and fellows and poor clinical reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: Most US medical schools have an identifiable academic geriatric medicine program; most have been established within the last 15 years. Resources are needed to train faculty for roles as teachers and researchers and to develop medical school geriatric programs of the size and scope equivalent to other academic disciplines.