Underrepresented in medicine (URiM) faculty development: Trends in biomedical database publication.

BACKGROUND: Biomedical databases create an educational platform that allows institutions to share innovations and research discoveries. Identifying literature in biomedical databases that inform the faculty development experiences of faculty underrepresented in medicine (URiM) can help institutions identify resources to promote career advancement for this group. The authors sought to determine biomedical database trends in publications related to faculty development experiences of URiM faculty over the last twenty years. METHODS: An electronic search for literature published between January 2003 to Dec 2022 was conducted in the databases CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, and PsycInfo using keywords underrepresented minority, faculty development, career development, professional development, academic medicine, and workforce in the title, abstract, or body of the manuscript. Growth rates were calculated for each database. The statistical significance difference in median numbers of publication per database was evaluated using Krusksal Wallis and Dunn's test post hoc. RESULTS: Search results found 1516 publications over the twenty-year period. Scopus published the most literature with 1,372 publications with a mean number of 68.6 per year (SD 83.47). Both Scopus and PubMed had increased growth rates at 41% and 25%, respectively. There were statistically significant differences in median publication numbers between Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycInfo (p < 0.001) but not PubMed (p 0.062). CONCLUSION: Trends in publications related to URiM faculty development have increased over the last twenty years, most noted in the Scopus and PubMed biomedical databases.

Overcoming Mission Competition in Departments of Family Medicine.

Departments of family medicine are centered around the tripartite mission of education, research, and clinical care. Historically, these three missions have been balanced and interdependent; however, changes in the funding and structures of health systems have resulted in shrinking education and research missions and an increased emphasis on clinical care. In the wake of waning state and federal contributions to primary care research, many departments of family medicine have adopted a private practice approach. This approach is centered on generating revenue for the institution, incentivizing physicians to remain clinically focused through productivity and intense attention to volume targets. As a department's focus shifts to the clinical care mission, education and research are increasingly neglected and underresourced. Meanwhile, the administrative burden of electronic health records (EHRs) has further encroached on time previously allocated to research, with the EHR burden disproportionately affecting the primary care workforce. To counteract mission competition in departments of family medicine and to recover the vital missions of education and scholarship, devising a clear plan for reclaiming and sustaining a tripartite mission is important. Advocating for increased primary care research funding, enhancing EHRs, balancing clinical and education metrics, and supporting primary care research, especially for groups underrepresented in medicine, are interventions to help fully support education and research missions and to recover and sustain mission balance in departments of family medicine.

Family Medicine Team Perspectives on Screening for Health-Related Social Needs.

INTRODUCTION: Social drivers of health (SDH) strongly influence health outcomes and disparities. Although systemic level change is vital to address the disparities driven by SDH, it is also crucial that health care organizations develop the ability to care for patients in a manner that accounts for social factors and their influence on patient health. Although primary care is a natural fit for health-related social needs (HRSN) screening and intervention, significant barriers can impede primary care's effectiveness in this area. METHODS: We conducted 3 focus groups with family medicine clinicians, clinical staff, and social care workers in an academic medical center using a semistructured discussion guide to explore current practices, perceived benefits, barriers, and potential opportunities and approaches for integrating routine HRSN screening in primary care. RESULTS: 3 primary themes emerged from the focus groups. They included 1) the barriers to routine screening in primary care, including time, workload, emotional burden, patient factors, and team members' fear of inadequacy of resources or their own ability; 2) the importance and benefit of HRSN screening, including the opportunity to improve patient care through increased care team awareness of the patient's context, interventions to address HRSN, and improved relationships between the care team and the patient; and 3) recommendations for implementing routine screening in primary care, including opportunities to optimize workflow and technology, the importance of an electronic medical record (EMR)-integrated resource database, and the centrality of teamwork. DISCUSSION: Family medicine health care teams embrace the importance of HRSN screening and the potential for positive impact. However, there are vital barriers and considerations to address for HRSN screening to be effectively integrated into primary care visits.