Impact of a Residency Family Systems Curriculum on the Postresidency Practice of Family Physicians.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Training residents in family systems and family-oriented care holds the potential to increase empathy for patients and to grow self-awareness of how one's own family of origin affects clinical practice. Little has been studied about how training residents in family systems affects their clinical practice after they graduate residency. METHODS: We surveyed all the residency graduates (N=60) who completed the longitudinal family systems curriculum during their third year of residency, from 2016 to 2021. The former residents were emailed a survey and asked to respond to Likert-scale and qualitative questions regarding the effects of the family systems curriculum on their clinical practice. RESULTS: Thirty-five graduates (58.3%) returned completed surveys. Overall, 26 of 35 (74.3%) respondents felt that the family systems curriculum had helped them a fair amount or a great deal in the care of their patients. In particular, 29 of 35 (82.9%) felt that the curriculum helped them a fair amount or a great deal in maintaining empathy. Compared to other longitudinal courses, 32 of 35 (91.4%) respondents indicated that they liked the curriculum somewhat or a great deal.  Conclusions: More than half the respondents found all elements of the curriculum helpful in their clinical practice, especially in the areas of caring for patients and maintaining empathy. The responses will be used as a baseline for comparison to improve the training. Continued research, perhaps in the form of randomized controlled trials using several residencies, could help in developing elements for more standardized curriculum in family-oriented care training.

Financing the Fourth Year: Experiences of Required 4-Year Family Medicine Residency Programs.

The optimal length of family medicine training has been debated since the specialty's inception. Currently there are four residency programs in the United States that require 4 years of training for all residents through participation in the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Length of Training Pilot. Financing the additional year of training has been perceived as a barrier to broader dissemination of this educational innovation. Utilizing varied approaches, the family medicine residency programs at Middlesex Health, Greater Lawrence Health Center, Oregon Health and Science University, and MidMichigan Medical Center all demonstrated successful implementation of a required 4-year curricular model. Total resident complement increased in all programs, and the number of residents per class increased in half of the programs. All programs maintained or improved their contribution margins to their sponsoring institutions through additional revenue generation from sources including endowment funding, family medicine center professional fees, institutional collaborations, and Health Resources and Services Administration Teaching Health Center funding. Operating expense per resident remained stable or decreased. These findings demonstrate that extension of training in family medicine to 4 years is financially feasible, and can be funded through a variety of models.

Rural Curricular Guidelines Based on Practice Scope of Recent Residency Graduates Practicing in Small Communities.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The optimal curriculum for training family physicians for rural practice within a traditional urban-based residency is not defined. We used the scope of practice among recent family medicine graduates of residencies associated with Preparing the Personal Physician for Practice (P4), practicing in small communities, to identify rural curriculum components. METHODS: We surveyed graduates 18 months after residency between 2007 and 2014. The survey measured self-reported practice characteristics, including community size, and scope of practice. We compared the subgroups according to practice community size. RESULTS: Compared to graduates in larger communities, those practicing in small communities were more likely to report a broader scope of clinical practice including: adult hospital care (59% vs 35%), vaginal deliveries (23% vs 12%), C sections as primary surgeon (14% vs 5%) and assistant (21% vs 8%), newborn hospital care (45% vs 24%), and procedures such as endometrial biopsy (46% vs 33%), joint injections and aspirations (89% vs 79%), and fracture care (58% vs 42%). Graduates in small communities were also more often engaged in assessing community health needs (78% vs 64%) and developing community interventions (67% vs 51%) compared to graduates in larger communities. In contrast, graduates in small communities were less likely to have integrated behavioral health (26% vs 46%) and case management support (37% vs 52%). CONCLUSIONS: A rural practice curriculum should include training toward a broad medical scope of practice as well as skills in community-oriented primary care and integrated behavioral health.

Scope of Practice Among Recent Family Medicine Residency Graduates.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The scope of practice among primary care providers varies, and studies have shown that family physicians' scope may be shrinking. We studied the scope of practice among graduates of residencies associated with Preparing the Personal Physician for Practice (P4) and how length of training and individualized education innovations may influence scope. METHODS: We surveyed graduates 18 months after residency between 2008 and 2014. The survey measured self-reported practice characteristics, scope of practice and career satisfaction. We assessed scope using individual practice components (25 clinical activities, 30 procedures) and a scaled score (P4-SOP) that measured breadth of practice scope. We conducted subgroup analyses according to exposure to innovations over the project period and exposure to specific innovations. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in mean P4-SOP scores between the Pre and Full P4 groups. Compared to national data, P4 graduates reported higher rates for vaginal deliveries (19.3% vs 9.2%), adult inpatient care (48.5% vs 33.7%) and nursing home care (25.4 vs 11.7%) in practice. Graduates exposed to innovations that lengthened training, compared to standard training length, were more likely to include adult hospital care (58.2% vs 38.5%, P=0.002), adult ICU care (30.6% vs 19.2%, P=0.047) and newborn resuscitation (25.6% vs 14%, P=0.028) in their practice and performed 19/30 procedures at higher rates. Graduates of programs with individualized training innovations reported no significant differences in scope compared to graduates without this innovation. CONCLUSIONS: Graduates of residencies engaged in significant educational redesign report a broad scope of practice. Innovations around the length of training may broaden scope and individualized education appears not to constrict scope.