Practice Patterns of Family Physicians With and Without Sports Medicine Certification.

OBJECTIVE: To update information regarding practice patterns of family physicians with a certificate of added qualifications (CAQ) in Sports Medicine (SM), because it has been over 10 years since the last comprehensive study. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of 2017 and 2018 American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) Family Medicine Certification and SM CAQ examination registration practice demographic questionnaire data. SETTING: N/A. PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians with a CAQ in SM [sports medicine family physicians (SM-FPs)] and family physicians without a CAQ registering for the ABFM Family Medicine Certification or SM CAQ examinations. INTERVENTION: N/A. MAIN OUTCOMES: Self-reported time spent practicing SM, activities in SM, scope of practice, and practice setting. RESULTS: Sports medicine family physicians are predominately men (78.7%) and below 49 years (65.8%). Most SM-FPs spend 60% of their time or less practicing SM and the scope of practice of SM-FPs is only slightly narrower than that of their family physician counterparts without a CAQ. In addition, 92.8% of SM-FPs are practicing in an urban setting. CONCLUSIONS: The similarity of scope of practice for SM-FPs and family physicians without a CAQ and the time spent practicing SM by SM-FPs suggests that most SM-FPs are spending a significant amount of time continuing to practice their primary specialty. Sports medicine family physicians are largely attracted to urban practice settings, most likely because of the higher likelihood of employment opportunities. Finally, factors that may be dissuading women from entering the field of SM deserve further investigation.

Predictors of Attrition From Family Medicine Board Certification.

Board certification is associated with higher quality care. We sought to determine the rates and predictors of attrition from certification among family physicians who achieved initial certification with the American Board of Family Medicine from 1980 through 2000. In this period, 5.6% of family physicians never attempted recertification, with the rate increasing from 4.9% between 1990 and 1995 to 5.7% from 1996 to 2000. Being male, an international medical graduate, or 30 years of age or older at initial certification was associated with not recertifying. With information about those likely to leave certification, the board can design and implement interventions that minimize attrition.

The Effects of Training Institution Practice Costs, Quality, and Other Characteristics on Future Practice.

PURPOSE: Medicare beneficiary spending patterns reflect those of the 306 Hospital Referral Regions where physicians train, but whether this holds true for smaller areas or for quality is uncertain. This study assesses whether cost and quality imprinting can be detected within the 3,436 Hospital Service Areas (HSAs), 82.4 percent of which have only 1 teaching hospital, and whether sponsoring institution characteristics are associated. METHODS: We conducted a secondary, multi-level, multivariable analysis of 2011 Medicare claims and American Medical Association Masterfile data for a random, nationally representative sample of family physicians and general internists who completed residency between 1992 and 2010 and had more than 40 Medicare patients (3,075 physicians providing care to 503,109 beneficiaries). Practice and training locations were matched with Dartmouth Atlas HSAs and categorized into low-, average-, and high-cost spending groups. Practice and training HSAs were assessed for differences in 4 diabetes quality measures. Institutional characteristics included training volume and percentage of graduates in rural practice and primary care. RESULTS: The unadjusted, annual, per-beneficiary spending difference between physicians trained in high- and low-cost HSAs was $1,644 (95% CI, $1,253-$2,034), and the difference remained significant after controlling for patient and physician characteristics. No significant relationship was found for diabetes quality measures. General internists were significantly more likely than family physicians to train in high-cost HSAs. Institutions with more graduates in rural practice and primary care produced lower-spending physicians. CONCLUSIONS: The "imprint" of training spending patterns on physicians is strong and enduring, without discernible quality effects, and, along with identified institutional features, supports measures and policy options for improved graduate medical education outcomes.

Call to Action on Making Physical Activity Assessment and Prescription a Medical Standard of Care.

The U.S. population is plagued by physical inactivity, lack of cardiorespiratory fitness, and sedentary lifestyles, all of which are strongly associated with the emerging epidemic of chronic disease. The time is right to incorporate physical activity assessment and promotion into health care in a manner that engages clinicians and patients. In April 2015, the American College of Sports Medicine and Kaiser Permanente convened a joint consensus meeting of subject matter experts from stakeholder organizations to discuss the development and implementation of a physical activity vital sign (PAVS) to be obtained and recorded at every medical visit for every patient. This statement represents a summary of the discussion, recommendations, and next steps developed during the consensus meeting. Foremost, it is a "call to action" for current and future clinicians and the health care community to implement a PAVS in daily practice with every patient.

Family physicians' quality interventions and performance improvement through the ABFM diabetes performance in practice module.

PURPOSE: Practice performance assessment is the fourth requirement of Maintenance of Certification for Family Physicians (MC-FP). American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) diplomates have many options for completing Part 4 requirements, including Web-based Performance in Practice Modules (PPMs) developed by the ABFM. Our objective was to describe the actions and outcomes of family physicians who completed the ABFM diabetes PPM. METHODS: We undertook a descriptive study of all diabetes PPMs completed by physicians in the 50 United States and Washington, DC, from 2005 to October 2012. Successful completion required quality measure abstraction from 10 patient charts before and after a plan-do-study-act cycle improvement effort. We used descriptive statistics to assess physician demographics and quality outcomes. RESULTS: Family physicians completed 7,924 diabetes qualitative improvement modules. Their mean age was 48.2 years, they had practiced a mean of 13.8 years, and three-fourths lived in urban areas (76.9%). Nearly one-half selected diabetic foot examination or eye examination as their quality improvement measure. Performance on all quality measures improved. Significant improvement was seen in rates of hemoglobin A1c control (<7.0%; 57.4% to 61.3%), blood pressure control (<130/90 mm Hg; 53.3% to 56.3%), foot examinations (68.0% to 85.8%); and retina examinations (55.5% to 71.1%). The most common interventions were standing orders (51.6%) and patient education (37.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Family physicians participating in MC-FP implemented improvement projects and showed quality improvements in caring for patients with diabetes. Emphasis on quality of care by payers will increasingly require physicians to embrace quality measurement and improvement.

Factors influencing family physicians' contribution to the child health care workforce.

PURPOSE: We wanted to explore demographic and geographic factors associated with family physicians' provision of care to children. METHODS: We analyzed the proportion of family physicians providing care to children using survey data collected by the American Board of Family Medicine from 2006 to 2009. Using a cross-sectional study design and logistic regression analysis, we examined the association of various physician demographic and geographic factors and providing care of children. RESULTS: Younger age, female sex, and rural location are positive predictors of family physicians providing care to children: odds ratio (OR) = 0.97 (95% CI, 0.97-0.98), 1.19 (1.12-1.25), and 1.50 (1.39-1.62), respectively. Family physicians practicing in a partnership are more likely to provide care to children than those in group practice: OR = 1.53 (95% CI, 1.40-1.68). Family physicians practicing in areas with higher density of children are more likely to provide care to children: OR = 1.04 (95% CI, 1.03-1.05), while those in high-poverty areas are less likely 0.10 (95% CI, 0.10-0.10). Family physicians located in areas with no pediatricians are more likely to provide care to children than those in areas with higher pediatrician density: OR = 1.80 (95% CI, 1.59-2.01). CONCLUSIONS: Various demographic and geographic factors influence the likelihood of family physicians providing care to children, findings that have important implications to policy efforts aimed at ensuring access to care for children.

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.

The rise of electronic health record adoption among family physicians.

PURPOSE: Realizing the benefits of adopting electronic health records (EHRs) in large measure depends heavily on clinicians and providers' uptake and meaningful use of the technology. This study examines EHR adoption among family physicians using 2 different data sources, compares family physicians with other office-based medical specialists, assesses variation in EHR adoption among family physicians across states, and shows the possibility for data sharing among various medical boards and federal agencies in monitoring and guiding EHR adoption. METHOD: We undertook a secondary analysis of American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) administrative data (2005-2011) and data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) (2001-2011). RESULTS: The EHR adoption rate by family physicians reached 68% nationally in 2011. NAMCS family physician adoption rates and ABFM adoption rates (2005-2011) were similar. Family physicians are adopting EHRs at a higher rate than other office-based physicians as a group; however, significant state-level variation exists, indicating geographical gaps in EHR adoption. CONCLUSION: Two independent data sets yielded convergent results, showing that adoption of EHRs by family physicians has doubled since 2005, exceeds other office-based physicians as a group, and is likely to surpass 80% by 2013. Adoption varies at a state level. Further monitoring of trends in EHR adoption and characterizing their capacities are important to achieve comprehensive data exchange necessary for better, affordable health care.

Family physicians in the maternity care workforce: factors influencing declining trends.

Family physicians provide access to maternity care for a disproportionate share of rural and urban underserved communities. This paper aims to determine trends in maternity care provision by family physicians and the characteristics of family physicians that provide maternity care. We used American Board of Family Medicine survey data collected from every family physician during application for the Maintenance of Certification Examination to determine the percentage of family physicians that provided maternity care from 2000 to 2010. Using a cross-sectional study design, logistic regression analysis was performed to examine association between maternity care provision and various physician demographic and practice characteristics. Maternity care provision by family physicians declined from 23.3 % in 2000 to 9.7 % in 2010 (p < 0.0001). Family physicians who were female, younger and US medical graduates were more likely to practice maternity care. Practicing in a rural setting (OR = 2.2; 95 % CL 2.1-2.4), an educational setting (OR = 6.4; 95 % CL 5.7-7.1) and in either the Midwest (OR = 2.6; 95 % CL 2.3-2.9) or West (OR = 2.3; 95 % CL 2.1-2.6) were the strongest predictors of higher likelihood of providing maternity care. While family physicians continue to play an important role in providing maternity care in many parts of the United States, the steep decline in the percentage of family physicians providing maternity care is concerning. Formal collaborations with midwives and obstetrician-gynecologists, malpractice reform, payment changes and graduate medical education innovations are potential avenues to explore to ensure access to maternity care.

Family physician participation in maintenance of certification.

PURPOSE: The American Board of Family Medicine has completed the 7-year transition of all of its diplomates into Maintenance of Certification (MOC). Participation in this voluntary process must be broad-based and balanced for MOC to have any practical national impact on health care. This study explores family physicians' geographic, demographic, and practice characteristics associated with the variations in MOC participation to examine whether MOC has potential as a viable mechanism for dissemination of information or for altering practice. METHODS: To investigate characteristics associated with differential participation in MOC by family physicians, we performed a cross-sectional comparison of all active family physicians using descriptive and multinomial logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Eighty-five percent of active family physicians in this study (n = 70,323) have current board certification. Ninety-one percent of all active board-certified family physicians eligible for MOC are participating in MOC. Physicians who work in poorer neighborhoods (odds ratio [OR] = 1.105; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.038-1.176), who are US-born or foreign-born international medical graduates (OR = 1.221; 95% CI, 1.124-1.326; OR = 1.444; 95% CI, 1.238-1.684, respectively), or who are solo practitioners (OR = 1.460; 95% CI, 1.345-1.585) are more likely to have missed initial MOC requirements than those from a large, undifferentiated reference group of certified family physicians. When age is held constant, female physicians are less likely to miss initial MOC requirements (OR = 0.849; 95% CI, 0.794-0.908). Physicians practicing in rural areas were found to be performing similarly in meeting initial MOC requirements to those in urban areas (OR = 0.966; 95% CI, 0.919-1.015, not significant). CONCLUSION: Large numbers of family physicians are participating in MOC. The significant association between practicing in underserved areas and lapsed board certification, however, warrants more research examining causes of differential participation. The penetrance of MOC engagement shows that MOC has the potential to convey substantial practice-relevant medical information to physicians. Thus, it offers a potential channel through which to improve health care knowledge and medical practice.

Retrieving Family Medicine's Lost Literature: The Journal of Family Practice 1974-1999 Archive.

The first repository of research in family medicine in the United States was the Journal of Family Practice (JFP) (https://www.mdedge.com/familymedicine). Much of the original development, debates about family medicine and primary care, and subsequent discoveries reside in JFP issues from 1974 to 1999. An archive of these issues is now available online after being somewhat lost for several years. It is a treasure-trove of information that reveals the evolution of family medicine as a discipline and remains pertinent to the current challenges and aspiration of family medicine and primary care. Investigators can benefit from checking this archive to build from prior work and avoid unnecessarily starting over.

Factors Associated with Time Spent Practicing Sports Medicine by Those with a Certificate of Added Qualification.

PURPOSE: To determine those factors associated with family physicians certified in sports medicine (SM-FPs) devoting 75% or more of their professional time to the exclusive practice of sports medicine. METHODS: Data from the American Board of Family Medicine sports medicine examination registration questionnaires from 2003 to 2017 were analyzed. The characteristics of SM-FPs devoting 75% or more of their time to sports medicine were compared with those SM-FPs spending less than 75% time. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine characteristics that independently predicted devoting 75% or more of their professional time to the practice of sports medicine. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred twelve SM-FPs recertifying in sports medicine between 2003 to 2017 were studied. They were predominately male (85.2%), allopathic (91.7%) physicians with a mean age of 47.3 years (interquartile range (IQR), 42.1-54.2) and devoted a median 50% of their professional time (IQR, 25-80) to sports medicine. Age less than 47.3 years (odds ratio (OR), 1.53; 1.12-2.08), service as a collegiate team physician (OR 1.66; 1.10-2.50), recertification in sports medicine in 2011 to 2017 compared with earlier years (OR 2.47; 1.62-3.78), and practicing in a sports medicine clinic (OR, 6.43; 4.15-9.95) predicted greater odds of spending 75% or more of their time devoted to sports medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Those factors found to be associated with spending 75% or more of their time practicing sports medicine by SM-FPs seem to be consistent with recent trends in the recruitment and employment of these physicians and their ability to provide added value to the health care system by virtue of their additional training and expertise.

Uniting Public Health and Primary Care for Healthy Communities in the COVID-19 Era and Beyond.

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has laid bare the dis-integrated health care system in the United States. Decades of inattention and dwindling support for public health, coupled with declining access to primary care medical services have left many vulnerable communities without adequate COVID-19 response and recovery capacity. "Health is a Community Affair" is a 1966 effort to build and deploy local communities of solution that align public health, primary care, and community organizations to identify health care problem sheds, and activate local asset sheds. After decades of independent effort, the COVID-19 pandemic offers an opportunity to reunite and align the shared goals of public health and primary care. Imagine how different things might look if we had widely implemented the recommendations from the 1966 report? The ideas and concepts laid out in "Health is a Community Affair" still offer a COVID-19 response and recovery approach. By bringing public health and primary care together in community now, a future that includes a shared vision and combined effort may emerge.

The American Board of Family Medicine: Celebrating 50 Years of Continuing Transformation.

The history of the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) is briefly recounted by focusing on 4 major touchstones that can be considered instrumental in shaping its development as the third largest specialty board in the United States. These include the board's founding, its implementation of maintenance of certification, the creation of its research enterprise, and its culture. The importance of each of these touchstones to the unique contributions that the ABFM has made to the specialty board community is explored.

The American Board of Family Medicine's Data Collection Method for Tracking Their Specialty.

BACKGROUND: Medical certifying boards' core mission is assuring the public that Diplomates have the requisite knowledge, skills, and professional character to provide high-quality medical care. By understanding their Diplomates' workforce and practice environments, Boards ensure that certification is relevant to the profession and accountable to the public. Current and reliable data are key to meeting this function. The objective of this article was to describe American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) data collection procedures and demonstrate the capacity to compare cohorts by examination year. METHODS: We used data from ABFM examination application practice demographic questionnaires from 2013 to 2016. Descriptive and bivariate statistics assessed variation in Diplomate and certification candidate characteristics across examination cohorts. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2016, 55,532 family physicians applied for either initial certification (n = 15,388) or to continue their certification (n = 40,144). Diplomate characteristics varied slightly from year to year with more International Medical Graduates and fewer men in later cohorts but, these differences were not large between cohorts. Initial certification candidates were more likely to be women, and racial or ethnic minorities than Diplomates seeking to continue their certification, and each year's cohort was characterized by increasing numbers of female and US medical graduates. DISCUSSION: Data collected from Diplomates as part of examination registration have proved invaluable to serving the mission of the ABFM and advancing knowledge about the specialty of family medicine. Continued refinement of data collection to enhance data reliability and usefulness, while reducing collection burden, will continue.

Family Physicians' Contributions to Rural Emergency Care and Urban Urgent Care.

Using 2017 data, we demonstrate a sharp increase in the proportion of family physicians (FPs) working primarily in rural emergency departments and increasing numbers of FPs working in urgent care centers. Despite growth in emergency medicine-trained physicians, FPs are likely to continue to be the backbone of emergency care in rural America.

Motivation for Participation in the American Board of Family Medicine Certification Program.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Board certification programs have been criticized as not relevant to practice, not improving patient care, and creating additional burdens on already overburdened physicians. Many physicians may feel compelled to participate in board certification programs in order to satisfy employer, hospital, and insurer requirements; however, the influence of forces as motivators for physicians to continue board certification is poorly understood. METHODS: We used data from the 2017 American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) Family Medicine Certification Examination practice demographic registration questionnaire for those seeking to continue their certification, removing physicians who indicated they did not provide direct patient care. We utilized a mixed-methods design. For the quantitative analysis, a proportional odds logistic regression was used to examine the association between predictor variables and increasing levels of external motivation. For the qualitative analysis, we used a deductive approach to examine open-text responses. RESULTS: Of the analytical sample of 7,545 family physicians, approximately one-fifth (21.4%) were motivated to continue their board certification solely by intrinsic factors. Less than one-fifth (17.3%) were motivated only by extrinsic factors, and the majority (61.2%) reported mixed motivations for continuing their board certification. Only 38 respondents (0.5%) included a negative opinion about the certification process in their open-text responses. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of family physicians in this sample noted a requirement to continue their certification, suggesting that there has been no significant increase in the requirements from employers, credentialing bodies, or insurers for physicians to continue board certification noted in previously cited work. Furthermore, only 17.5% of our sample reported solely external motivation to continue certification, indicating that real or perceived requirements are not the primary driver for most physicians to maintain certification.