The Future of Family Medicine Residency Education: The Specialty Has Spoken

Newton, Warren P.; Mitchell, Karen; Magill, Michael K.

doi:10.1370/afm.2677

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It follows up the December declaration of the Boards and Specialty Societies, 13 representing over 400,000 physicians, calling for a new paradigm of primary care with urgent payment and regulatory reform and calls for change in the GME system to make it more responsive to the needs of society. 14 All bring clarity about the need for robust primary care, for grounding our system of graduate medical education in the needs of the public, and for a governmental focus on primary care as a public good.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning From COVID-19: System Blindness to Primary Care

Newton¹,

Baxley²,

Magill³

2021

Ann Fam Med

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The new educational series is one of several CME products on behavioral and mental health produced by the Academy. The AAFP is also a member of the recently formed Behavioral Health Integration Collaborative, a group of 8 physician organizations working together to incorporate behavioral and mental health into overall health care and increase patient access to behavioral health services in the primary care setting. AAFP NewsFrom the American Board of Family Medicine

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning From COVID-19: System Blindness to Primary Care

Newton¹,

Baxley²,

Magill³

2021

Ann Fam Med

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Work is already underway to re-envision family medicine residency training in order to better prepare primary care physicians for the practice of the future. [44][45][46] Subsequent high-quality comparative effectiveness studies measuring outcomes such as in-training examination scores, board examination pass rates, readiness for practice at graduation, and satisfaction with training could lead to the emergence of LIRT as an approach capable of producing physicians better prepared to handle the medical complexity and variety that physicians routinely face in their roles within a community.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Longitudinal Interleaved Residency Training: A Consensus Definition

Zeller

Beben

Kong

et al. 2023

Fam Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: Cognitive benefits of longitudinal curricula and interleaving have been demonstrated in several disciplines. However, most residency curricula are structured in a block format. There is no consensus definition as to what constitutes a longitudinal program, making comparative research on curricular efficacy a challenge. The objective of our study was to arrive at a consensus definition of Longitudinal Interleaved Residency Training (LIRT) in family medicine. Methods: A national workgroup was convened and utilized a Delphi method between October 2021 and March 2022 to arrive at a consensus definition. Results: Twenty-four invitations were sent, and 18 participants initially accepted. The final workgroup (n=13) was representative of the nationwide diversity of family medicine residency programs in terms of geographic location (P=.977) and population density (P=.123). The following definition was approved: “LIRT is a curricular design and program structure that offers graduated, concurrent clinical experiences in the core competencies of the specialty. LIRT models the comprehensive scope of practice and continuity that defines the specialty; applies training methods that enhance long-term retention of knowledge, skills, and attitudes across all dimensions and locations of care delivery; and accomplishes program objectives through employment of longitudinal curricular scheduling and interleaving with spaced repetition.” Additional technical criteria and definitions of terms are elucidated in the body of this article. Conclusions: A representative national workgroup crafted a consensus definition of Longitudinal Interleaved Residency Training (LIRT) in family medicine, a program structure with a basis in emerging evidence-based cognitive science.

show abstract

“…8 Studying both where graduates practice after training is complete as well as care delivery features used in practice is critical, given recent calls within the discipline of family medicine for greater accountability in graduate medical education (GME) and greater transparency when linking public funds to the needs of patients and communities. 9,10 Standardized outcomes that include specialty choice, clinical competence, preparation for practice, practice type/location, and scope of practice have been suggested as important areas to track as accountability metrics, because these may influence patient outcomes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postresidency Practice Setting and Clinical Care Features According to 3 Versus 4 Years of Training in Family Medicine: A Length of Training Pilot Study

Eiff,

Ericson,

Dinh

et al. 2024

Fam Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: Factors associated with physician practice choice include residency location, training experiences, and financial incentives. How length of training affects practice setting and clinical care features postgraduation is unknown. Methods: In this Length of Training Pilot (LoTP) study, we surveyed 366 graduates of 3-year (3YR) and 434 graduates of 4-year (4YR) programs 1 year after completion of training between 2013 and 2021. Variables assessed included reasons for practice setting choice, practice type, location, practice and community size, specialty mix, and clinical care delivery features (eg, integrated behavioral health, risk stratified care management). We compared different length of training models using χ2 or Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables and independent samples, and t test (unequal variances) for continuous variables. Results: Response rates ranged from 50% to 88% for 3YR graduates and 68% to 95% for 4YR graduates. Scope of practice was a predominant reason for graduates choosing their eventual practice, and salary was a less likely reason for those completing 4 years versus 3 years of training (scope, 72% vs 55%, P=.001; salary, 15% vs 22%, P=.028). Community size, practice size, practice type, specialty mix, and practice in a federally designated underserved site did not differ between the two groups. We found no differences in patient-centered medical home features when comparing the practices of 3YR to 4YR graduates. Conclusions: Training length did not affect practice setting or practice features for graduates of LoTP programs. Future LoTP analyses will examine how length of training affects scope of practice and clinical preparedness, which may elucidate other elements associated with practice choice.

show abstract

The Future of Family Medicine Residency Education: The Specialty Has Spoken

Cited by 6 publications

References 1 publication

Learning From COVID-19: System Blindness to Primary Care

Learning From COVID-19: System Blindness to Primary Care

Longitudinal Interleaved Residency Training: A Consensus Definition

Postresidency Practice Setting and Clinical Care Features According to 3 Versus 4 Years of Training in Family Medicine: A Length of Training Pilot Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About