A Longitudinal Assessment of Resident and New Graduate Well-Being According to Length of Training: A Report From the Length of Training Pilot in Family Medicine.

Background & Objectives: No prior studies have examined how length of training may influence wellness. As part of the Length of Training Pilot (LoTP), we explored resident and new graduate well-being according to program year and length of training in 3- and 4-year family medicine residency training programs. METHODS: Two surveys captured data included in these analyses. One was a resident survey that included the Mayo Clinic physician-expanded Well-Being Index (eWBI) administered annually during the In-Training Examination (2014-2019). The second was administered to graduates 1 year after completion of training between 2016 and 2022 and included the same well-being questions. Response rates ranged between 77.7% and 96.8%. RESULTS: The eWBI summary scores for burnout were highest in postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) and did not differ statistically according to length of training (PGY1: 2.02 in 3-year [3YR] programs vs 1.93 in 4-year [4YR] programs, P=.55; postgraduate year 2 [PGY2]: 2.42 in 3YR programs vs 2.38 in 4YR programs, P=.83; postgraduate year 3 [PGY3]: 2.18 in 3YR programs vs 2.28 in 4YR programs, P=.59; and 2.34 in postgraduate year 4 [PGY4] for those in 4YR programs), though some statistical differences were noted for three items. New graduates' eWBI summary scores before the COVID-19 pandemic were 1.77 among 3YR graduates and 1.66 among 4YR graduates (P=.59). These scores were higher during COVID-19 at 1.89 for 3YR graduates and 2.02 for 4YR graduates (P=.62). Length of training was not associated with differences in well-being before or during COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: We found no associations between length of training and physician well-being during training or among new graduates before or during COVID-19.

Living, Leading & Medicine: A two-tiered leadership development programme for family medicine residents.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing awareness of the necessity and importance for physician leadership in health care. Despite this, formal leadership training is not widespread in medical education. APPROACH: We describe the structure, curriculum and development of a robust two-tiered leadership development programme within a community-based family medicine residency programme. Living, Leading & Medicine (LLM, tier 1) consists of nine 2.5-h discussion-based training sessions occurring thrice annually. The Advanced Leadership Track (ALT, tier 2) includes mentoring, additional readings, personal evaluations and leadership projects. EVALUATION: We used post-session surveys and exit surveys for LLM and ALT, respectively. We utilised the modified Kirkpatrick framework for programme evaluation to present outcomes from the first 3 years for each tier. Over three quarters (40 out of 53) of residents participated in LLM sessions. The post-session survey response rate for LLM was 95% (124 out of 130 participants). Eighteen out of 33 residents (54.5%) completed the ALT. Of these, 72% (13 of 18) returned exit surveys. Residents found the programme valuable and relevant (Kirkpatrick level 1). Residents demonstrated improvements in leadership knowledge and skills (3.85 v. 3.11, p < 0.0001; Kirkpatrick level 2) compared with an internal, historic control group. We noted changes in resident behaviour and attitudes towards leadership (Kirkpatrick level 3). Finally, the completion of leadership projects demonstrates Kirkpatrick level 4 outcomes. IMPLICATIONS: We have created a longitudinal, two-tiered leadership development programme that has improved the leadership capabilities of our family medicine residents.