The Future of Family Medicine Residency Training is Our Future: A Call for Dialogue Across Our Community

Newton, Warren P.; Bazemore, Andrew; Magill, Michael K.; Mitchell, Karen; Peterson, Lars E.; Phillips, Robert L.

doi:10.3122/jabfm.2020.04.200275

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…29,30 The upcoming process to write major revisions of the ACGME Family Medicine Program Requirements will be a prime opportunity for the discipline to engage its community on where to set the next bar in family medicine residency education. 31…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Six Years’ Experience Using Specialty National Residency Index: An Early Dashboard to Document Change Over Time

Hoekzema

Mills

Maxwell

et al. 2021

Fam Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: A decade ago, the Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors developed the Residency Performance Index (RPI) as a novel dashboard of metrics to support residency programs’ quality improvement efforts. Although the RPI has since been discontinued, we sought to identify lessons learned from an analysis of 6 years of data collected while the RPI was in use to inform future quality and accreditation efforts implemented at the national level. Methods: The RPI collected data from 2012-2017 for nearly 250 distinct family medicine residency programs, identifying strengths and areas for improvement. Eighty-two programs provided data for 3 or more years of measures allowing analysis of improvement trends. Results: For participating programs, aggregate data over 6 years indicated the majority had stable leadership and accreditation. Total family medicine center (FMC) visits by graduates and resident visit demographics were robust. Graduate scope of practice was consistent with nationally publicized trends. Programs hit most aspirational targets more than 40% of the time. However, analysis for those programs with 3 or more years of data revealed that the tool did not result in significant changes for most metrics. Linear regression analysis showed improvements in total patient visits, visits under 10 years of age, and certain procedural competencies for those programs with 3 or more years of data. Conclusions: The RPI was the first and only nationally utilized family medicine graduate medical education quality improvement tool. Individual programs did not show substantial change in quantifiable metrics over time despite limited evidence of select programmatic improvements. Nationally, aggregated data provided insight into scope of practice and other areas of interest in residency training. Further efforts in provision of residency improvement tools are important to support programs given the increasing complexity and high stakes of family medicine residency education.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Six Years’ Experience Using Specialty National Residency Index: An Early Dashboard to Document Change Over Time

Hoekzema

Mills

Maxwell

et al. 2021

Fam Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over the past 15 years, ABFM and the Family Medicine Review Committee have worked closely together to catalyze innovation in residency education, reduce disparities of cognitive expertise for International Medical Graduates (IMGs) 1 and to test the validity of milestones 2 and we are working closely to bring evidence and community dialog to bear on the upcoming major revision of the residency requirements. 3,4 Let us now work together to…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of the ACGME’s June 2019 Changes in Residency Requirements

Newton

Magill

2020

J Am Board Fam Med

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…12 States can utilize Medicaid to create community-based GME programs that meet community needs. 13,14 In order…”

Section: Medicaid Funding For Gmementioning

confidence: 99%

Social Accountability and Graduate Medical Education

Kaufman

Scott

Andazola

et al. 2021

Fam Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because graduate medical education (GME) is largely publicly funded, it should be judged on how well it addresses the public’s health needs. However, the current system distributes GME resources inequitably by specialty and geography, and neglects to focus on training physicians adequately in the care of populations while reducing health disparities. Instead, GME continues to concentrate training in hospital-based academic centers and in subspecialties, which often exacerbates disparities in health outcomes and access to care. GME can be more socially accountable by shifting incentive structures to support primary care, creating more equitable distribution of residency slots and funding, and promoting training programs that focus on social and structural determinants of health.

show abstract

The Future of Family Medicine Residency Training is Our Future: A Call for Dialogue Across Our Community

Cited by 14 publications

References 19 publications

Six Years’ Experience Using Specialty National Residency Index: An Early Dashboard to Document Change Over Time

Six Years’ Experience Using Specialty National Residency Index: An Early Dashboard to Document Change Over Time

The Impact of the ACGME’s June 2019 Changes in Residency Requirements

Social Accountability and Graduate Medical Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About