ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The shortage of residency faculty in the pipeline is a growing concern to meet future workforce needs, though there is little research on attracting residents to be future faculty or what factors would influence their interest in this role. The objectives of this study were: (1) To assess the interest of third year residents (R3s) in faculty positions, and the various factors that might positively or negatively affect this decision; (2) to compare whether this changes across the R3 year; and (3) to compare between chief residents and other R3s. METHODS: Longitudinal survey at two points in time for each of three consecutive cohorts of R3s (2016-2018) from a regional network of family medicine residency programs. RESULTS: Among the final sample of R3s (176/545, 32% response), nearly half were interested in a residency faculty role. Strong positive influences on interest include the teaching role, advising/mentoring role, range of practice scope, and ability to perform procedures; salary and administrative responsibilities detract from interest. Among the matched sample of 96 R3s who also responded at Time 2 (55% response), non-chief residents had an increase in knowledge of and interest in the faculty role across the R3 year. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of senior family medicine residents report positive interest in residency faculty positions and in most components of the role. Mentorship may encourage more residents to consider these positions upon graduation or shortly thereafter. More research on other specialties and with career follow up is recommended.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Family medicine faculty face increasing expectations for clinical productivity. These expectations impinge on academic and education time and make it difficult to pursue research or scholarly activities. A task force convened by the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine created national guidelines to protect nonclinical time for family medicine faculty. METHODS: The task force reviewed existing guidelines for protected time, as well as data on current and past distribution of time for faculty in academic medicine, including a specific look at family medicine. Based on the evidence and expert opinion from task force members and leaders of family medicine organizations, the task force developed eight consensus recommendations. RESULTS: The guidelines include recommendations for allocation of protected time for program directors, associate program directors, and core faculty. These represent best practices to ensure programs have appropriate time to devote to the nonclinical duties of training and educating residents, while also promoting innovation in education, faculty well-being, and faculty retention. DISCUSSION: Faculty require nonclinical time for resident development, curriculum creation and maintenance, program assessment, and scholarship. Without these functions, programs can't meet accreditation requirements or fulfill their responsibility to develop strong family physicians. Residency programs, sponsoring institutions, universities, health care systems, and accrediting bodies should use these recommendations to develop budgets that provide appropriate time allocation to enhance faculty wellness, reduce turnover, and meet organizational missions and objectives around education and providing care for communities.
