The Practice Is the Curriculum.

The training family medicine residents receive will have a lasting impact on how they deliver care in the future. Evidence demonstrates an imprinting effect based on the training environment itself. Thus, residency training represents a critical time for establishing clinical experiences that embody core primary care principles and ensure excellent care delivery. This paper focuses on the clinical experience in the family medicine practice setting. We have used Starfield's four C's of primary care and added two more: cost and community, as the tools to achieve the triple aim. In reviewing the current state of residency programs across the country, we noted that there was a lack of measurement on how programs were performing when it came to the six C's. We will briefly describe some recent innovative collaboratives among residencies. Next, we examine the six C's of primary care in context of current care. These six C's inform our recommendations for residency training standards to create the family physicians of the future. The overarching theme of these recommendations is the need to measure and report on what we want to ultimately improve.

Learnings From the Pilot Implementation of Mobile Medical Milestones Application.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of the educational milestones benefits from mobile technology that facilitates ready assessments in the clinical environment. We developed a point-of-care resident evaluation tool, the Mobile Medical Milestones Application (M3App), and piloted it in 8 North Carolina family medicine residency programs. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine variations we found in the use of the tool across programs and explored the experiences of program directors, faculty, and residents to better understand the perceived benefits and challenges of implementing the new tool. METHODS: Residents and faculty completed presurveys and postsurveys about the tool and the evaluation process in their program. Program directors were interviewed individually. Interviews and open-ended survey responses were analyzed and coded using the constant comparative method, and responses were tabulated under themes. RESULTS: Common perceptions included increased data collection, enhanced efficiency, and increased perceived quality of the information gathered with the M3App. Residents appreciated the timely, high-quality feedback they received. Faculty reported becoming more comfortable with the tool over time, and a more favorable evaluation of the tool was associated with higher utilization. Program directors reported improvements in faculty knowledge of the milestones and resident satisfaction with feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Faculty and residents credited the M3App with improving the quality and efficiency of resident feedback. Residents appreciated the frequency, proximity, and specificity of feedback, and faculty reported the app improved their familiarity with the milestones. Implementation challenges included lack of a physician champion and competing demands on faculty time.

A comparison of live counseling with a web-based lifestyle and medication intervention to reduce coronary heart disease risk: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Most primary care clinicians lack the skills and resources to offer effective lifestyle and medication (L&M) counseling to reduce coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. Thus, effective and feasible CHD prevention programs are needed for typical practice settings. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness, acceptability, and cost-effectiveness of a combined L&M intervention to reduce CHD risk offered in counselor-delivered and web-based formats. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A comparative effectiveness trial in 5 diverse family medicine practices in North Carolina. Participants were established patients, aged 35 to 79 years, with no known cardiovascular disease, and at moderate to high risk for CHD (10-year Framingham Risk Score [FRS], ≥10%). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to counselor-delivered or web-based format, each including 4 intensive and 3 maintenance sessions. After randomization, both formats used a web-based decision aid showing potential CHD risk reduction associated with L&M risk-reducing strategies. Participants chose the risk-reducing strategies they wished to follow. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was within-group change in FRS at 4-month follow-up. Other measures included standardized assessments of blood pressure, blood lipid levels, lifestyle behaviors, and medication adherence. Acceptability and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. Outcomes were assessed at 4 and 12 months. RESULTS: Of 2274 screened patients, 385 were randomized (192 counselor; 193 web): mean age, 62 years; 24% African American; and mean FRS, 16.9%. Follow-up at 4 and 12 months included 91% and 87% of the randomized participants, respectively. There was a sustained reduction in FRS at both 4 months (primary outcome) and 12 months for both counselor-based (-2.3% [95% CI, -3.0% to -1.6%] and -1.9% [95% CI, -2.8% to -1.1%], respectively) and web-based groups (-1.5% [95% CI, -2.2% to -0.9%] and -1.7% [95% CI, -2.6% to -0.8%] respectively). At 4 months, the adjusted difference in FRS between groups was -1.0% (95% CI, -1.8% to -0.1%) (P = .03), and at 12 months, it was -0.6% (95% CI, -1.7% to 0.5%) (P = .30). The 12-month costs from the payer perspective were $207 and $110 per person for the counselor- and web-based interventions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Both intervention formats reduced CHD risk through 12-month follow-up. The web format was less expensive. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01245686.