The impact of family physicians in rural maternity care.

BACKGROUND: Reduced access to maternity care in rural areas of the United States presents a significant burden to pregnant persons and infants. The objective of this study was to estimate the impact of family physicians (FPs) on access to maternity care in rural United States hospitals, especially where other providers may not be available. METHODS: We administered a survey to 216 rural hospitals in 10 US states inquiring about the number of babies delivered from 2013 to 2017, the types of delivering physicians, and the maternity services offered. We calculated the percentage of rural hospitals in our sample where FPs performed vaginal deliveries, cesareans, and vaginal births after cesarean (VBACs), and the percentage of all babies delivered by FPs. We estimated the distance patients would have to travel for care if FPs were not providing care locally. RESULTS: The final study population consisted of 185 rural hospitals. FPs delivered babies in 67% of these hospitals and were the only physicians who delivered babies in 27% of these hospitals. FPs provided VBAC at 18% and cesarean birth services at 46% of the rural hospitals, but with wide geographic differences. Many patients would have to drive an average of 86 miles round-trip to access care if those FPs were to stop delivering. CONCLUSIONS: Family physicians are essential providers of maternity care in the rural United States. Family Medicine residency programs should ensure that trainees who intend to practice in rural locations have adequate maternity care training to maintain and expand access to maternity care for rural patients and their families.

Transforming Rural Family Medicine Curriculum From Experiential to Virtual: A Response to COVID-19 Limitations.

Cessation of all classroom and clinical activities in the spring of 2020 for first- and second-year medical students at the University of Minnesota Medical School Duluth campus both forced and enabled revision of rural medicine instruction and experiences. Creatively utilizing rural family physicians and third-year rural physician associate medical students to interact with first-year students virtually in a number of areas and using electronic connectivity enabled the institution to continue to emphasize rural medical health issues with the students.

Contributions of US Medical Schools to Primary Care (2003-2014): Determining and Predicting Who Really Goes Into Primary Care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Schools of medicine in the United States may overstate the placement of their graduates in primary care. The purpose of this project was to determine the magnitude by which primary care output is overestimated by commonly used metrics and identify a more accurate method for predicting actual primary care output. METHODS: We used a retrospective cohort study with a convenience sample of graduates from US medical schools granting the MD degree. We determined the actual practicing specialty of those graduates considered primary care based on the Residency Match Method by using a variety of online sources. Analyses compared the percentage of graduates actually practicing primary care between the Residency Match Method and the Intent to Practice Primary Care Method. RESULTS: The final study population included 17,509 graduates from 20 campuses across 14 university systems widely distributed across the United States and widely varying in published ranking for producing primary care graduates. The commonly used Residency Match Method predicted a 41.2% primary care output rate. The actual primary care output rate was 22.3%. The proposed new method, the Intent to Practice Primary Care Method, predicted a 17.1% primary care output rate, which was closer to the actual primary care rate. CONCLUSIONS: A valid, reliable method of predicting primary care output is essential for workforce training and planning. Medical schools, administrators, policy makers, and popular press should adopt this new, more reliable primary care reporting method.

Outcomes and influences of rural-focused integrated clerkship programs in general surgery.

BACKGROUND: A shortage of general surgeons is predicted in the future, with particular impact on rural surgery. This is an exploratory analysis on a rural-focused longitudinal integrated clerkship to determine if such clerkships can be used to increase interest and recruitment in rural general surgery. METHODS: An institutional database was reviewed to identify students who became general surgeons after completing a rural-focused longitudinal integrated clerkship. Telephone interviews were conducted on a portion of these surgeons. RESULTS: Fifty-seven students (3.6%) completing the rural-focused longitudinal integrated clerkship became general surgeons. Of those participating in phone interviews, most (90%) decided to become surgeons during their experience while all stated that preclinical years did not influence their specialty decision. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial portion of these surgeons went on to practice in rural communities. Pre-existing rural and primary care-focused education could help to address the future projected shortage of rural general surgeons.

Teaching Community Health Needs Assessment to First Year Medical Students: Integrating with Longitudinal Clinical Experience in Rural Communities.

Community health education is especially important for physicians who will practice in rural communities. However, the majority of efforts to teach community and population health in medical school appear in later years and focus on non-rural contexts. This article presents data from a formative evaluation of a newly developed curricular component on population health and community health assessment for first year medical students in a rural longitudinal clinical preceptorship. Curricular elements included: a classroom lecture and review of online community health databases, an individual homework assignment and a classroom debriefing session. In a sample of 210 students, pre- and post-course surveys and exam questions assessed gains in awareness and skills over the course period. Analyses of data aggregated over four academic years (2013-2014 to 2016-2017) showed that first year medical students reported significant increases in familiarity with online resources (29.5% pre vs. 94.8% post, p < .001), understanding the importance of community health assessments (67.5% pre vs. 96.7%, p < .001), knowing how to plan a community health assessment (20.0% pre vs. 90.5%, p < .001), and awareness of Affordable Care Act expectations for community health assessments (12.4% pre vs. 82.4% post, p < .001). Further, students performed well on exam questions and reported that this component fit well with the objectives of the rural longitudinal clinical preceptorship course. Later-year education should reinforce early learnings and future studies involving long-term follow-up of physicians could assess the impact of early exposure to community health education on physician behaviors.

Rural Family Medicine Outcomes at the University of Minnesota Medical School Duluth.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The University of Minnesota Medical School Duluth (MSD) opened in 1972 with a mission to train physicians serving rural Minnesota, emphasizing family medicine and American Indian (AI) communities. Nationwide there are shortages in family medicine and AI physicians, and MSD is a leader in these outcomes. METHODS: This is a longitudinal, retrospective cohort analysis of 1972-2009 MSD graduates using descriptive statistics and multivariate regression to determine relationships between gender, race, age, and hometown and outcomes of family medicine specialty, rural practice, and rural family medicine practice. RESULTS: MSD graduate outcomes are significantly higher than other US medical schools but declining, 47% chose family medicine and 37% chose a rural first practice location. Selection of rural and family medicine declined more rapidly for men than women, but there was no overall gender difference. AI graduates had rates of rural family medicine similar to their white classmates and older AI students were more likely to select rural family medicine. Graduates from rural hometowns were more likely to select rural practice but not to practice family medicine. CONCLUSIONS: MSD culture and curricula produce AI, family medicine, and rural physicians, but the school is experiencing a downward trend. Understanding the relationship between demographics and outcomes over time will assist policy makers and educators in optimizing strategies to develop the rural family medicine workforce.

Medical school rural programs: a comparison with international medical graduates in addressing state-level rural family physician and primary care supply.

PURPOSE: Comprehensive medical school rural programs (RPs) have made demonstrable contributions to the rural physician workforce, but their relative impact is uncertain. This study compares rural primary care practice outcomes for RP graduates within relevant states with those of international medical graduates (IMGs), also seen as ameliorating rural physician shortages. METHOD: Using data from the 2010 American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, the authors identified all 1,757 graduates from three RPs (Jefferson Medical College's Physician Shortage Area Program; University of Minnesota Medical School Duluth; University of Illinois College of Medicine at Rockford's Rural Medical Education Program) practicing in their respective states, and all 6,474 IMGs practicing in the same states and graduating the same years. The relative likelihoods of RP graduates versus IMGs practicing rural family medicine and rural primary care were compared. RESULTS: RP graduates were 10 times more likely to practice rural family medicine than IMGs (relative risk [RR] = 10.0, confidence interval [CI] 8.7-11.6, P < .001) and almost 4 times as likely to practice any rural primary care specialty (RR 3.8, CI 3.5-4.2, P < .001). Overall, RPs produced more rural family physicians than the IMG cohort (376 versus 254). CONCLUSIONS: Despite their relatively small size, RPs had a significant impact on rural family physician and primary care supply compared with the much larger cohort of IMGs. Wider adoption of the RP model would substantially increase access to care in rural areas compared with increasing reliance on IMGs or unfocused expansion of traditional medical schools.

Undergraduate rural medical education program development: focus group consultation with the NRHA Rural Medical Educators Group.

CONTEXT: Over a decade ago, leaders in rural medical education established the Rural Medical Educators (RME) Group, an interest group within the National Rural Health Association, to support faculty in rural medical education programs. This group has convened an annual RME conclave since 2006. In 2008, this conclave convened 15 national leaders in rural medical education at The University of Alabama. METHODS: In preparation for the conclave, potential participants were e-mailed a set of questions regarding their respective medical education program's initiating motivation, support, resistance, resources, accomplishments, and continuation plans. Analysis of participants' responses resulted in a question guide that was used at a focus group conducted at the conclave. PURPOSE: The purpose of the focus group was to explore the experiences of established rural medical educators related to program development and maintenance. The focus group was recorded and transcribed, and then analyzed using the constant comparative method. FINDINGS: Five essential elements for rural medical education programs emerged from the analysis. The elements were: admit the right student, include curricular elements that occur and are required in rural training sites, establish a cadre of rural physicians who are dedicated to education of their successors, secure financial and relational support for the program, and evaluate program progress. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Discussion about these 5 elements can provide program guidance to neophyte rural medical education programs. Five recommendations are presented in an effort to continue discussion about the essential elements and identify actions that rural medical educators can take to further assist developing programs.

Efforts to graduate more primary care physicians and physicians who will practice in rural areas: examining outcomes from the university of Minnesota-duluth and the rural physician associate program.

PURPOSE: To compare practice choices (primary care or specialty) and practice locations (rural or metropolitan) of medical students at the Duluth and Twin Cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul; TC) campuses of the University of Minnesota (UMN). In the early 1970s, Minnesota created two medical education programs at UMN to increase the number of rural and primary care physicians: the first two years of medical school at UMN-Duluth, where the program focuses on recruiting students who will be rural family physicians, and the Rural Physician Associate Program (RPAP) elective, a nine-month, longitudinal immersion experience with a preceptor in a rural community. METHOD: In 2008, the authors analyzed outcomes for four student groups: (1) UMN-Duluth and (2) UMN-TC medical students who participated in RPAP and (3) UMN-Duluth and (4) UMN-TC students who did not participate in RPAP. UMN medical students complete their first two years on either campus; they can apply to RPAP for their third year. Non-RPAP students spend most of their third- and fourth-year rotations in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. RESULTS: The UMN-Duluth and RPAP students were most likely to select a rural location and primary care practice. UMN-TC, non-RPAP students followed national trends, choosing predominantly metropolitan and specialty practices. CONCLUSIONS: RPAP and UMN-Duluth provide significant, complementary educational programs that lead more graduates to choose rural and primary care practices. Efforts across the nation to address the crisis in rural primary care should build on these successful efforts.

Exploring the dual-physician marriage.

A substantial number of female physicians marry fellow doctors, yet little is known about these dual-physician couples. In an effort to identify these couples, surveys were sent to 1,695 female physician members of the Minnesota Medical Association. Women who were or had been married to a physician were asked to complete the survey. The majority of women responding (n = 203) were between the ages of 36 and 45 and had married during medical school. Only a small percentage (11.3%) were divorced, and medicine was reported to play a role in 69.6% of those separations. Questions were asked regarding work and family life, and job satisfaction levels. Despite many positive responses to the questionnaire, some problems existed in these marriages. Overall, however, responses indicated that the advantages of being married to another physician for outweigh the disadvantages.