Resident Visit Productivity and Attitudes About Continuity According to 3 Versus 4 Years of Training in Family Medicine: A Length of Training Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Training models in the Length of Training Pilot (LOTP) vary. How innovations in training length affect patient visits and resident perceptions of continuity is unknown. METHODS: We analyzed resident in-person patient encounters (2013-2014 through 2018-2019) for each postgraduate year (PGY) and total visits at graduation derived from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education reports for each LOTP program. We collected data on residents' perceptions of continuity from annual surveys (2015-2019). We analyzed continuous variables using independent samples t tests with unequal variance and categorical variables using χ2 tests in comparing 3-year (3YR) versus 4-year (4YR) programs. RESULTS: PGY-1 and PGY-2 residents in 4YR programs saw statistically more patients than their counterparts in 3YR programs. In PGY3, 3YR program residents had statistically higher visit volume compared to 4YR program residents. Visits conducted in PGY4 ranged from 832 to 884. The additional year of training resulted in approximately 1,000 more total patient visits. Most residents in 3YR and 4YR programs rated their continuity clinic experience as somewhat or very adequate (range 86.3% to 93.7%), which did not statistically differ according to length of training. CONCLUSIONS: Resident visits were significantly different at each PGY level when comparing 3YR and 4YR programs in the LOTP and the additional year of training resulted in about 1,000 more total visits. Resident perspectives on the adequacy of their continuity clinic experience appeared to not be affected by length of training. Future research should explore how the volume of patient visits performed in residency affects scope of practice and clinical preparedness.

The Association Between Length of Training and Family Medicine Residents' Clinical Knowledge: A Report From the Length of Training Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The associations between training length and clinical knowledge are unknown. We compared family medicine in-training examination (ITE) scores among residents who trained in 3- versus 4-year programs and to national averages over time. METHODS: In this prospective case-control study, we compared the ITE scores of 318 consenting residents in 3-year programs to 243 who completed 4 years of training between 2013 through 2019. We obtained scores from the American Board of Family Medicine. The primary analyses involved comparing scores within each academic year according to length of training. We used multivariable linear mixed effects regression models adjusted for covariates. We performed simulation models to predict ITE scores after 4 years of training among residents who underwent only 3 years of training. RESULTS: At baseline postgraduate year-1 (PGY1), the estimated mean ITE scores were 408.5 for 4-year programs and 386.5 for 3-year programs, a 21.9 point difference (95% CI=10.1-33.8). At PGY2 and PGY3, 4-year programs scored 15.0 points higher and 15.6 points higher, respectively. When extrapolating an estimated mean ITE score for 3-year programs, 4-year programs would still score 29.4 points higher (95% CI=15.0-43.8). Our trend analysis revealed those in 4-year programs had a slightly lesser slope increase compared to 3-year programs in the first 2 years. Their drop-off in ITE scores is less steep in later years, though these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: While we found significantly higher absolute ITE scores in 4 versus 3-year programs, these increases in PGY2, PGY3 and PGY4 may be due to initial differences in PGY1 scores. Additional research is needed to support a decision to change the length of family medicine training.

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.

The Importance of and the Complexities Associated With Measuring Continuity of Care During Resident Training: Possible Solutions Do Exist.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Evolutions in care delivery toward the patient-centered medical home have influenced important aspects of care continuity. Primary responsibility for a panel of continuity patients is a foundational requirement in family medicine residencies. In this paper we characterize challenges in measuring continuity of care in residency training in this new era of primary care. METHODS: We synthesized the literature and analyzed information from key informant interviews and group discussions with residency faculty and staff to identify the challenges and possible solutions for measuring continuity of care during family medicine training. We specifically focused on measuring interpersonal continuity at the patient level, resident level, and health care team level. RESULTS: Challenges identified in accurately measuring interpersonal continuity of care during residency training include: (1) variability in empanelment approaches for all patients, (2) scheduling complexity in different types of visits, (3) variability in ability to attain continuity counts at the level of the resident, and (4) shifting make-up of health care teams, especially in residency training. Possible solutions for each challenge are presented. Philosophical issues related to continuity are discussed, including whether true continuity can be achieved during residency training and whether qualitative rather than quantitative measures of continuity are better suited to residencies. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring continuity of care in residency training is challenging but possible, though improvements in precision and assessment of the comprehensive nature of the relationships are needed. Definitions of continuity during training and the role continuity measurement plays in residency need further study.

Program Director Participation in a Leadership and Management Skills Fellowship and Characteristics of Program Quality.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The association between a residency program director completing a leadership and management skills fellowship and characteristics of quality and innovation of his/her residency program has not been studied. Therefore, the aim of this study is to examine the association between a residency program director's completion of a specific fellowship addressing these skills (National Institute for Program Director Development or NIPDD) and characteristics of quality and innovation of the program they direct. METHODS: Using information from the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) and FREIDA® program characteristics were obtained. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. The relationship between programs with a NIPDD graduate as director and program quality measures and indicators of innovation was analyzed using both chi square and logistic regression. RESULTS: Initial analyses showed significant associations between the NIPDD graduate status of a program director and regional location, mean years of program director tenure, and the program's 5-year aggregate ABFM board pass rate from 2007--2011. After grouping the programs into tertiles, the regression model showed significant positive associations with programs offering international experiences and being a NIPDD graduate. CONCLUSIONS: Program director participation in a fellowship addressing leadership and management skills (ie, NIPDD) was found to be associated with higher pass rates of new graduates on a Board certification examination and predictive of programs being in the upper tertile of programs in terms of Board pass rates.