Ten-year trends in family medicine residency productivity and staffing: impact of electronic health records, resident duty hours, and the medical home.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Electronic health records (EHRs), resident duty hour restrictions, and Patient-centered Medical Home (PCMH) innovations have all impacted the clinical practices of residency programs over the past decade. The University of Washington Family Medicine Network (UWFMN) residencies have collaborated for 10 years in collecting and comparing data regarding the productivity and operations of their training programs to identify the program-level effects of such changes. Based on five survey results from 2000 to 2010, this study examines changes in faculty and resident productivity and staffing models of UWFMN residency training clinics using a standardized methodology, specifically describing the productivity impact of EHR changes and duty hour restrictions and the implementation of the PCMH by residencies. METHODS: Data were systematically collected via standardized questionnaire, evaluated for quality, clarified, and then analyzed. RESULTS: Resident productivity decreased over the 10-year interval, with resident total yearly patient visits down 17.2%. Core family medicine faculty productivity was highly variable among programs, and nonphysician provider visits increased. Faculty part-time status increased. Front office, medical assistant, and nursing staffing grew significantly, but other administrative staff decreased, resulting in minimal change in total non-provider staffing. A majority of programs engaged in PCMH initiatives in 2010 and had implemented an EHR. CONCLUSIONS: Physician productivity in UWFMN residency programs decreased for all resident physicians from 2000 to 2010, likely due to a combination of decreased resident duty hours and other clinical practice changes. Productivity trends have implications for the structure and training requirements for family medicine residency programs.

Ten-year trends in the financing of family medicine training programs: considerations for planning and policy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The recent Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes physician training provisions to address the US primary care workforce shortage and maldistribution. Policymakers require current graduate medical education (GME) residency finance data to design and implement programs that increase primary care physicians. The University of Washington Family Medicine Network residencies have collaborated for 10 years in collecting and comparing data regarding the revenues and expenses of their training programs. Based on biennial survey results from 2000 to 2010, this study examines changes in the finances of residency training over a decade using a standardized methodology. METHODS: Data were systematically collected by standardized questionnaire, evaluated for quality and verified, and then analyzed. RESULTS: The per-resident expense of residency education for these programs increased an average of 63%, and overall residency revenues increased 75%. GME funding per resident increased 47% but decreased as proportionate contribution to overall program revenue. CONCLUSIONS: The mean cost per resident remained relatively stable over the 10-year period, with a 3.1% overall increase to $27,260 per resident per year. Programs that successfully obtained federally qualified health center (FQHC) status, increased their residency graduate medical education (GME) slots or received other new significant funding, such as state grants, were the most financially stable. Policy solutions would stabilize both federal GME and state Medicaid GME funding and increase reimbursement of primary care practice to maintain the viability of primary care training programs. Conclusions: The mean cost per resident remained relatively stable over the 10-year period, with a 3.1% overall increase to $27,260 per resident per year. Programs that successfully obtained federally qualified health center (FQHC) status, increased their residency graduate medical education (GME) slots or received other new significant funding, such as state grants, were the most financially stable. Policy solutions would stabilize both federal GME and state Medicaid GME funding and increase reimbursement of primary care practice to maintain the viability of primary care training programs.

Comparing narrative and multiple-choice formats in online communication skill assessment.

OBJECTIVES: We compared multiple-choice and open-ended responses collected from a web-based tool designated 'Case for Change', which had been developed for assessing and teaching medical students in the skills involved in integrating sexual risk assessment and behaviour change discussions into patient-centred primary care visits. METHODS: A total of 111 Year 3 students completed the web-based tool. A series of videos from one patient encounter illustrated how a clinician uses patient-centred communication and health behaviour change skills while caring for a patient presenting with a urinary tract infection. Each video clip was followed by a request for students to respond in two ways to the question: 'What would you do next?' Firstly, students typed their statements of what they would say to the patient. Secondly, students selected from a multiple-choice list the statements that most closely resembled their free text entries. These two modes of students' answers were analysed and compared. RESULTS: When articulating what they would say to the patient in a narrative format, students frequently used doctor-centred approaches that focused on premature diagnostic questioning or neglected to elicit patient perspectives. Despite the instruction to select a matching statement from the multiple-choice list, students tended to choose the most exemplary patient-centred statement, which was contrary to the doctor-centred approaches reflected in their narrative responses. CONCLUSIONS: Open-ended questions facilitate in-depth understanding of students' educational needs, although the scoring of narrative responses is time-consuming. Multiple-choice questions allow efficient scoring and individualised feedback associated with question items but do not fully elicit students' thought processes.