Responses to Medical Students' Frequently Asked Questions About Family Medicine.

This article provides answers to many of the common questions that medical students ask about the specialty of family medicine. It describes the crucial role that family physicians have in the evolving health care environment, the scope of practice, the diverse career opportunities available, the education and training of family physicians, the economic realities of a career in family medicine, why the future is so bright for family medicine, and why family physicians are passionate about their work.

Health is primary: Family medicine for America's health.

PURPOSE: More than a decade ago the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation, American Board of Family Medicine, Association of Departments of Family Medicine, Association of Family Practice Residency Directors, North American Primary Care Research Group, and Society of Teachers of Family Medicine came together in the Future of Family Medicine (FFM) to launch a series of strategic efforts to "renew the specialty to meet the needs of people and society," some of which bore important fruit. Family Medicine for America's Health was launched in 2013 to revisit the role of family medicine in view of these changes and to position family medicine with new strategic and communication plans to create better health, better health care, and lower cost for patients and communities (the Triple Aim). METHODS: Family Medicine for America's Health was preceded and guided by the development of a family physician role definition. A consulting group facilitated systematic strategic plan development over 9 months that included key informant interviews, formal stakeholder surveys, future scenario testing, a retreat for family medicine organizations and stakeholder representatives to review strategy options, further strategy refinement, and finally a formal strategic plan with draft tactics and design for an implementation plan. A second communications consulting group surveyed diverse stakeholders in coordination with strategic planning to develop a communication plan. The American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians joined the effort, and students, residents, and young physicians were included. RESULTS: The core strategies identified include working to ensure broad access to sustained, primary care relationships; accountability for increasing primary care value in terms of cost and quality; a commitment to helping reduce health care disparities; moving to comprehensive payment and away from fee-for-service; transformation of training; technology to support effective care; improving research underpinning primary care; and actively engaging patients, policy makers, and payers to develop an understanding of the value of primary care. The communications plan, called Health is Primary, will complement these strategies. Eight family medicine organizations have pledged nearly $20 million and committed representatives to a multiyear implementation team that will coordinate these plans in a much more systematic way than occurred with FFM. CONCLUSIONS: Family Medicine for America's Health is a new commitment by 8 family medicine organizations to strategically align work to improve practice models, payment, technology, workforce and education, and research to support the Triple Aim. It is also a humble invitation to patients and to clinical and policy partners to collaborate in making family medicine even more effective.

Financial Considerations Associated With a Fourth Year of Residency Training in Family Medicine: Findings From the Length of Training Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The feasibility of funding an additional year of residency training is unknown, as are perspectives of residents regarding related financial considerations. We examined these issues in the Family Medicine Length of Training Pilot. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2019, we collected data on matched 3-year and 4-year programs using annual surveys, focus groups, and in-person and telephone interviews. We analyzed survey quantitative data using descriptive statistics, independent samples t test, Fisher's Exact Test and χ2. Qualitative analyses involved identifying emergent themes, defining them and presenting exemplars. RESULTS: Postgraduate year (PGY)-4 residents in 4-year programs were more likely to moonlight to supplement their resident salaries compared to PGY-3 residents in three-year programs (41.6% vs 23.0%; P=.002), though their student debt load was similar. We found no differences in enrollment in loan repayment programs or pretax income. Programs' descriptions of financing a fourth year as reported by the program director were limited and budget numbers could not be obtained. However, programs that required a fourth year typically reported extensive planning to determine how to fund the additional year. Programs with an optional fourth year were budget neutral because few residents chose to undertake an additional year of training. Resources needed for a required fourth year included resident salaries for the fourth year, one additional faculty, and one staff member to assist with more complex scheduling. Residents' concerns about financial issues varied widely. CONCLUSIONS: Adding a fourth year of training was financially feasible but details are local and programs could not be compared directly. For programs that had a required rather than optional fourth year much more financial planning was needed.

A model for a standardized national family medicine graduate survey.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Accreditation requirements mandate that family medicine residency programs perform surveys of graduates. As part of the Preparing the Personal Physician for Practice (P4) Project, we developed a model for a standardized national graduate survey to be used to assess practice characteristics of graduates, including the implementation of features of the Patient-centered Medical Home (PCMH). METHODS: We conducted a content analysis of residency graduate surveys from the 14 programs involved in the P4 project to identify common elements of importance to residencies. We then designed a new graduate survey as a core measure of the P4 Project. It included practice characteristics, assessment of training, and the status of features of the PCMH. RESULTS: Categories of variables common to the graduate surveys of the P4 programs included physician and practice characteristics, work load, scope of practice, career satisfaction, and assessment of training. We found variability among programs in the number of procedures and residency content areas listed on any individual program survey, with the number of procedure ranging from 0--21, and the number of content areas ranging from 0-61. The only PCMH feature included on any P4 program survey was the status of an electronic medical record. CONCLUSIONS: Graduate surveys from individual residency programs vary widely. Using a standardized national survey instrument would provide important information to understand the national practice characteristics and scope of practice in family medicine as well as to track the implementation of PCMH features among residency graduates.

Six-year update on the financial status of US Family Medicine Departments.

BACKGROUND: The financial climate for academic family medicine departments is increasingly threatened by reductions in federal funding and ever more competitive health care markets. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to evaluate the financial status of US Departments of Family Medicine, comparing 1998 and 2004 data. METHODS: In 1999 and 2005, family medicine department chairs were surveyed for the Association of Departments of Family Medicine. Information reported about departments' financial status for 1998 and 2004 included department size, faculty compensation, revenue sources, expenditures, residents' salary support, payer mix, and department reserves. The 2005 survey data were compared to the 1999 survey reports. RESULTS: Eighty-five departments responded to the 2005 survey (69% of 124 departments). For 2004, the largest source of department revenue was clinical income; the median percent of revenue from clinical work increased from 32% in 1998 to 46% in 2004. The contributions of school/government support and hospital support decreased. Median expenditures for faculty salaries and fringe benefits increased (from 49% to 54%). Although the percentage of departments with reserves had increased (from 57% to 71%), 18% of departments reported debt in 2004. CONCLUSIONS: Family medicine departments increasingly rely on clinical income. They continue to be vulnerable to changes in support from government and hospital sources, since these sources constitute significant portions of department budgets but have declined in the past 6 years.

Entry of US medical school graduates into family medicine residencies: 2007-2008 and 3-year summary.

This is the 27th report prepared by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) on the percentage of each US medical school's graduates entering family medicine residency programs. Approximately 8.3% of the 16,300 graduates of US medical schools between July 2006 and June 2007 were first-year family medicine residents in 2007, compared with 8.5% in 2006 and 8.4% in 2005. Medical school graduates from publicly funded medical schools were more likely to be first-year family medicine residents in October 2007 than were residents from privately funded schools, 10.0% compared with 5.6%. The West North Central and the Mountain regions reported the highest percentage of medical school graduates who were first-year residents in family medicine programs in October 2007 at 12.2% and 11.9%, respectively; the New England and Middle Atlantic regions reported the lowest percentages at 5.5% and 4.7%, respectively. Nearly half of the medical school graduates (46.5%) entering a family medicine residency program as first-year residents in October 2007 entered a program in the same state where they graduated from medical school. The percentages for each medical school have varied substantially from year to year since the AAFP began reporting this information. This article reports the average percentage for each medical school for the last 3 years. Also reported are the number and percentage of graduates from colleges of osteopathic medicine who entered Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited family medicine residency programs, based on estimates provided by the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine.

Results of the 2008 National Resident Matching Program: family medicine.

The results of the 2008 National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) reflect a currently stable level of student interest in family medicine residency training in the United States. Compared with the 2007 Match, 91 more positions (with 65 more US seniors) were filled in family medicine residency programs through the NRMP in 2008, at the same time as 10 fewer (one fewer US senior) in primary care internal medicine, eight fewer positions were filled in pediatrics-primary care (10 fewer US seniors), and 19 fewer (27 fewer US seniors) in internal medicine-pediatrics programs. Multiple forces, including student perspectives of the demands, rewards, and prestige of the specialty, the turbulence and uncertainty of the health care environment, lifestyle issues, and the impact of faculty role models, continue to influence medical student career choices. Thirty-one more positions (20 fewer US seniors) were filled in categorical internal medicine. Thirty more positions (84 fewer US seniors) were filled in categorical pediatrics programs. The 2008 NRMP results suggest that while interest in family medicine experienced a slight increase in the number of students choosing the specialty, interest in other primary care careers continues to decline. With the needs of the nation calling for the roles and services of family physicians, family medicine still matched too few graduates through the 2008 NRMP to meet the nation's needs for primary care physicians.

Preparing the personal physician for practice: changing family medicine residency training to enable new model practice.

After two years of intensive study, in 2004 the Future of Family Medicine report concluded that the current U.S. health care system is inadequate and unsustainable, and called for changes within the specialty of family medicine to ensure the future health of the American public. With guidance and encouragement from many disciplines and health experts, a set of 10 recommendations was established to accomplish a transformative change in how family physicians serve their patients and how the essential function of primary care is achieved. From these recommendations came a period of innovation and experimentation in the training of family physicians, entitled Preparing the Personal Physician for Practice (P4). The P4 project is a carefully designed and evaluated initiative led by the American Board of Family Medicine and the Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors and administered by TransforMED, a practice redesign initiative of the American Academy of Family Physicians. Fourteen family medicine programs were chosen to participate and will put their innovations into practice from 2007 to 2012, during which time regular evaluation will be conducted. The purpose of P4 is to learn how to improve the graduate medical education of family physicians such that they are prepared to be outstanding personal physicians and to work in the new models of practice now emerging. The innovations tested by P4 residencies are expected to inspire substantial changes in the content, structure, and locations of training of family physicians and to guide future revisions in accreditation and certification requirements.

Entry of US medical school graduates into family medicine residencies: 2006-2007 and 3-year summary.

This is the 26th report prepared by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) on the percentage of each US medical school's graduates entering family medicine residency programs. Approximately 8.5% of the 16,110 graduates of US medical schools between July 2005 and June 2006 were first-year family medicine residents in 2006, compared with 8.4% in 2005 and 9.2% in 2004. Medical school graduates from publicly funded medical schools were more likely to be first-year family medicine residents in October 2006 than were residents from privately funded schools, 10.1% compared with 6.0%. The West North Central and the Mountain regions reported the highest percentage of medical school graduates who were first-year residents in family medicine programs in October 2006 at 12.4% and 10.7%, respectively; the New England and Middle Atlantic regions reported the lowest percentages at 5.7% and 5.6%, respectively. Nearly half of the medical school graduates (49.2%) entering a family medicine residency program as first-year residents in October 2006 entered a program in the same state where they graduated from medical school. The percentages for each medical school have varied substantially from year to year since the AAFP began reporting this information. This article reports the average percentage for each medical school for the last 3 years. Also reported are the number and percentage of graduates from colleges of osteopathic medicine who entered Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited family medicine residency programs, based on estimates provided by the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine.

Family medicine specialty selection: a proposed research agenda.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to provide an update on the status of selection by medical students of family medicine as a specialty, to summarize what is known about influences on this specialty choice, and to propose a research agenda for the future. METHODS: Data from the National Resident Matching Program and the American Academy of Family Physicians residency database were obtained. Past reviews of research on family medicine specialty selection were summarized, and recent research was reviewed. Gaps in the knowledge base and common research design weaknesses were listed. RESULTS: As a result of our analysis, a set of 12 research questions are posed and a set of 11 study design recommendations made. CONCLUSIONS: Family medicine specialty choice research must be planned and conducted with the most robust methodology possible, building on past research, to produce results that can assist in formulating effective policy.

Experience with an optional 4-year residency: the University of Arizona Family Medicine Residency.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There has been declining interest by US medical students in the specialty of family medicine. Simultaneously, new data suggest that the length of training may be related to the decline in student interest. The new data have created a national debate over the appropriate length of training for family physicians. The Future of Family Medicine Report recommends conducting experiments with 4-year residency training programs. METHODS: Since 1999--2000, the University of Arizona Family Medicine Residency Program has offered three fourth-year options: a fourth-year fellowship in sports medicine, an integrated third- and fourth-year experience in complementary and alternative medicine, and an option for a master's in public health degree. Data on applications to the residency program have been monitored to measure the effect of these options on the applicant pool. RESULTS: National Resident Matching Program statistics, and the interest in the program expressed by US graduates, have improved for the University of Arizona program during a time when national interest in family medicine has continued to decline. DISCUSSION: While cause and effect cannot be proven, offering an additional year of training did not decrease interest in the University of Arizona program and may have increased interest. Experiments with 4-year training programs are not possible in all programs because graduate medical education funding only covers the 3 years needed to complete the requirements for specialty certification.

Results of the 2007 National Resident Matching Program: family medicine.

The results of the 2007 National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) reflect a currently stable level of student interest in family medicine residency training in the United States. Compared with the 2006 Match, five fewer positions (with 25 fewer US seniors) were filled in family medicine residency programs through the NRMP in 2007, at the same time as 20 fewer (two more US seniors) in primary care internal medicine, the same number of pediatrics-primary care (four fewer US seniors), and one more (19 fewer US seniors) in internal medicine-pediatrics programs. Multiple forces, including student perspectives of the demands, rewards, and prestige of the specialty; the turbulence and uncertainty of the health care environment; lifestyle issues; and the impact of faculty role models continue to influence medical student career choices. Eighty-four more positions (12 more US seniors) were filled in categorical internal medicine. Fifty-four more positions (22 more US seniors) were filled in categorical pediatrics programs. The 2007 NRMP results suggest that interest in family medicine and primary care careers continues to decline. With the needs of the nation calling for the roles and services of family physicians, family medicine matched too few graduates through the 2007 NRMP to meet the nation's needs for primary care physicians.

The American Board of Family Medicine: New Tools to Assist Program Directors and Graduates Achieve Success.

In this commentary we review the improvements in the pass rates for first-time American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) Certification Examination test takers in the context of new tools and resources for program directors against the backdrop of a changing accreditation system and increased competition for a relatively fixed number of graduate medical education positions in family medicine. While causality cannot be established between the strategic initiatives of the ABFM and higher pass rates, we can all celebrate the new tools and resources provided to residents and program directors, and the improved performance of family medicine graduates on the certification examination.

Residency Training in Family Medicine: A History of Innovation and Program Support.

BACKGROUND: Residency programs have been integral to the development, expansion and progression of family medicine as a discipline. Three reports formed the foundation for graduate medical education in family medicine: Meeting the Challenge of Family Practice, The Graduate Education of Physicians, and Health is a Community Affair. In addition, the original core concepts of comprehensiveness, coordination, continuity, and patient centeredness continue to serve as the foundation for residency training in family medicine. While the Residency Review Committee for Family Medicine of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has provided the requirements for training throughout the years, key organizations including the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors, and the American Board of Family Medicine have provided resources for and supported innovation in programs. Residency Program Solutions, National Institute for Program Director Development, and Family Medicine Residency Curriculum Resource are several of the resources developed by these organizations. The future of family medicine residency training should continue the emphasis on innovation and development of resources to enhance the training of residents. Areas for further development include leadership and health care systems training that allows residents to assume leadership of multidisciplinary health care teams and increase focus on the family medicine practice population as the main unit for resident education.

Training on the clock: family medicine residency directors' responses to resident duty hours reform.

PURPOSE: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's 2003 restrictions on resident duty hours (RDH) raised concerns among educators about potential negative impacts on residents' training. In the early wake of these restrictions, little is known about how RDH reform impacts training in primary care. The authors surveyed family medicine (FM) residency program directors (PDs) for their perceptions of the impact of RDH regulations on training in primary care. METHOD: All PDs of 472 FM residency programs were asked via list-serve to complete an anonymous Internet-based survey in the fall of 2004. The survey solicited PDs' opinions about changes in staff and in residents' training experiences with respect to implementation of RDH regulations. Descriptive and qualitative analyses were conducted. RESULTS: There were 369 partial and 328 complete responses, for a response rate of 69% (328/472). Effects of the RDH regulations are varied. Fifty percent of FMPDs report increased patient-care duties for attendings, whereas 42% report no increase. Nearly 80% of programs hired no additional staff. Sixty percent of programs eliminated postcall clinics, and nearly 40% implemented a night-float system. Administrative hassles and losses of professionalism, educational opportunity, and continuity of care were common concerns, but a sizeable minority feel that residents will be better off under the new regulations. CONCLUSIONS: Many FMPDs cited increased faculty burden and the risk of lower-quality educational experiences for their trainees. Innovations for increasing the effectiveness of teaching may ultimately compensate for lost educational time. If not, alternatives such as extending the length of residency must be considered.

Entry of US medical school graduates into family medicine residencies: 2005-2006 and 3-year summary.

This is the 25th report prepared by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) on the percentage of each US medical school's graduates entering family medicine residency programs. Approximately 8.4% of the 16,066 graduates of US medical schools between July 2004 and June 2005 were first-year family medicine residents in 2005, compared with 9.2% in 2004 and 9.3% in 2003. Medical school graduates from publicly funded medical schools were more likely to be first-year family medicine residents in October 2005 than were residents from privately funded schools, 9.9% compared with 5.8%. The Mountain and the West North Central regions reported the highest percentage of medical school graduates who were first-year residents in family medicine programs in October 2005 at 13.3% and 12.7%, respectively; the New England and Middle Atlantic regions reported the lowest percentages at 5.2% and 5.6%, respectively. Nearly half of the medical school graduates (47.3%) entering a family medicine residency program as first-year residents in October 2005 entered a program in the same state where they graduated from medical school. The percentages for each medical school have varied substantially from year to year since the AAFP began reporting this information. This article reports the average percentage for each medical school for the last 3 years. Also reported are the number and percentage of graduates from colleges of osteopathic medicine who entered Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited family medicine residency programs, based on estimates provided by the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine.

Results of the 2006 National Resident Matching Program: family medicine.

The results of the 2006 National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) reflect a currently stable level of student interest in family medicine residency training in the United States. Compared with the 2005 Match, 26 more positions (with the same number of US seniors) were filled in family medicine residency programs through the NRMP in 2006, at the same time as four more (five fewer US seniors) in primary care internal medicine, one fewer in pediatrics-primary care (12 more US seniors), and four more (19 more US seniors) in internal medicine-pediatric programs. Many different forces, including student perspectives of the demands, rewards, and prestige of the specialty; the turbulence and uncertainty of the health care environment; lifestyle issues; and the impact of faculty role models continue to influence medical student career choices. Two more positions (nine more US seniors) were filled in categorical internal medicine. Two fewer positions (11 fewer US seniors) were filled in categorical pediatrics programs. The 2006 NRMP results suggest that interest in family medicine and primary care careers continues to be stable. With the needs of the nation calling for the roles and services of family physicians, family medicine matched too few graduates through the 2006 NRMP to meet the nation's needs for primary care physicians.