Comparative Analysis of the American Board of Family Medicine and American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians In-Training Examinations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Family medicine residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Osteopathic Association typically require their residents to take the American Board of Family Medicine's In-Training Examination (ITE) and the American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians' In-Service Examination (ISE). With implementation of the single accreditation system (SAS), is it necessary to administer both examinations? This pilot study assessed whether the degree of similarity for the construct of family medicine knowledge and clinical decision making as measured by both exams is high enough to be considered equivalent and analyzed resident ability distribution on both exams. METHODS: A repeated measures design was used to determine how similar and how different the rankings of PGY-3s were with regard to their knowledge of family medicine as measured by the ISE and ITE. Eighteen third-year osteopathic residents participated in the analysis, and the response rate was 100%. RESULTS: The correlation between ISE and ITE rankings was moderately high and significantly different from zero (rs=.76, P<0.05). A Wilcoxon signed rank test indicated that the median ISE score of 62 was not statistically significantly different than the median ITE score of 71 (Z=-0.74, P=0.46, 2-tailed). CONCLUSIONS: The lack of a difference on statistical analysis of ISE scores and the ITE scores of the PGY-3 residents suggests that the cohort of osteopathic residents in family residency programs and the cohort of residents in ACGME-accredited programs seem to be of comparable ability, therefore there is no clear justification for administering both examinations.

A review of the benefits and limitations of a primary care-embedded psychiatric consultation service in a medically underserved setting.

A significant percentage of patients with psychiatric disorders are exclusively seen for health-care services by primary care physicians. To address the mental health needs of such patients, collaborative models of care were developed including the embedded psychiatry consult model which places a consultant psychiatrist on-site to assist the primary care physician to recognize psychiatric disorders, prescribe psychiatric medication, and develop management strategies. Outcome studies have produced ambiguous and inconsistent findings regarding the impact of this model. This review examines a primary care-embedded psychiatric consultation service in place for nine years in a family medicine residency program. Psychiatric consultants, family physicians, and residents actively involved in the service participated in structured interviews designed to identify the clinical and educational value of the service. The benefits and limitations identified were then categorized into physician, consultant, patient, and systems factors. Among the challenges identified were inconsistent patient appointment-keeping, ambiguity about appropriate referrals, consultant scope-of-practice parameters, and delayed follow-up with consultation recommendations. Improved psychiatric education for primary care physicians also appeared to shift referrals toward more complex patients. The benefits identified included the availability of psychiatric services to underserved and disenfranchised patients, increased primary care physician comfort with medication management, and improved interprofessional communication and education. The integration of the service into the clinic fostered the development of a more psychologically minded practice. While highly valued by respondents, potential benefits of the service were limited by residency-specific factors including consultant availability and the high ratio of primary care physicians to consultants.

A review of published guidance for video recording in medical education.

INTRODUCTION: Medical educators have used resident-patient video recording to verify trainee competence in interpersonal and technical skills for 50 years. Although numerous authors acknowledge that video recording can compromise patient privacy and confidentiality, no summary of potential risks is available. METHOD: A scoping review of the literature on resident-patient video recording in medical education from the 1960s to the present was conducted. The review examined publications that addressed ethical, policy, procedural, or legal issues affecting patients' rights when video recording. RESULTS: Potential risks to the rights of video recorded patients were organized into 6 categories: informed consent policies, informed consent procedures, recorded medical errors, secondary use of recordings, collateral patient information, and public trust issues. The review revealed contradictory opinions on informed consent policies, inadequate guidance for responding when medical errors are recorded, and conflicting opinions about when recordings become part of the medical record. Many reviewed publications are opinion-based, precede current confidentiality guidelines, or rely on survey results. DISCUSSION: This review organizes potential threats to patients' rights for those medical educators who use video recording technology. The review reveals a need for broader consensus about video recording guidelines and for research on video recording practices, especially given technological advances in video equipment and the expansion of video technology in health care settings. (PsycINFO Database Record

Family Medicine Didactics Revisited.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: All family medicine programs are required to provide specialty-specific didactic conferences for residents. Since a baseline study of family medicine didactic formats was published in 2000, training requirements have changed, core content has evolved, and new teaching strategies have been recommended. The present study examines the characteristics of current family medicine didactics, compares current and past conference format data, and identifies factors affecting content selection. METHODS: The survey used in the prior conference formats study was distributed to all US family medicine programs. All questions from the original survey were repeated, and items regarding factors affecting conference content and threats to conferences were added. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 66%. The majority of family medicine programs endorse block formats for structuring conferences. Compared to the original study, programs are devoting significantly more hours to didactics on fewer days. Family medicine faculty and residents are responsible for 70% of didactic offerings (also a significant shift), and 87% of programs use a core curriculum. In over 70% of programs, some residents are unavailable for conferences due to work restrictions or service demands. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education subcompetencies and Milestones have only a moderate impact on topic selection. CONCLUSIONS: Family medicine didactics have evolved in the past 15 years with a notable increase in reliance upon core faculty and residents to lead conferences. Reduced availability of residents prevents all residents from having full exposure to the didactic curriculum. Family medicine faculty who are taking greater responsibility for didactics are also faced with increased clinical and administrative duties.

See One, Be One, Teach One: Faculty Use of Their Personal Health Narratives in Teaching.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite extensive examination of physician self-disclosure to patients and colleagues, no studies have directly investigated if physician faculty disclose personal health information to trainees for clinical teaching purposes. This study examines the types of personal medical information (personal health narratives) family medicine faculty use during resident teaching encounters and the beliefs of family medicine faculty about such disclosure. METHODS: Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the authors relied upon the triangulation of qualitative research methods to verify the use of and purpose for sharing personal health narratives by family physician faculty during teaching encounters. Direct observation, depth interviews, an attitude survey, and focus groups were sequentially used to evoke their beliefs about the purpose, benefits, and risks of sharing personal health narratives with residents. RESULTS: Ninety-eight percent of survey respondents acknowledged using personal health narratives in teaching, and half reported doing so infrequently. A large majority considered the practice an effective teaching method, but respondents were divided on potential risks. Focus group participants believed that disclosing health information is a powerful teaching method that should be utilized purposefully. Participants identified a need for guidance on how to effectively incorporate personal health narratives during teaching. CONCLUSIONS: The use of personal health narratives in teaching is well accepted among the physician faculty in this study. Although participants endorsed the practice, none had been trained to integrate self-disclosure in teaching, and most had not consciously considered the limits and risks of sharing their health histories with residents. Further research is needed to determine the prevalence, range, and depth of faculty disclosure in teaching and to assess the impact on learners.

Training the "assertive practitioner of behavioral science": advancing a behavioral medicine track in a family medicine residency.

OBJECTIVE: This article describes the development of a Behavioral Medicine track in a family medicine residency designed to train physicians to proactively and consistently apply advanced skills in psychosocial medicine, psychiatric care, and behavioral medicine. METHODS: The Behavioral Medicine track emerged from a behavioral science visioning retreat, an opportunity to restructure residency training, a comparative family medicine-psychiatry model, and qualified residents with high interest in behavioral science. Training was restructured to increase rotational opportunities in core behavioral science areas and track residents were provided an intensive longitudinal counseling seminar and received advanced training in psychopharmacology, case supervision, and mindfulness. RESULTS: The availability of a Behavioral Medicine track increased medical student interest in the residency program and four residents have completed the track. All track residents have presented medical Grand Rounds on behavioral science topics and have lead multiple workshops or research sessions at national meetings. Graduate responses indicate effective integration of behavioral medicine skills and abilities in practice, consistent use of brief counseling skills, and good confidence in treating common psychiatric disorders. CONCLUSION: As developed and structured, the Behavioral Medicine track has achieved the goal of producing "assertive practitioners of behavioral science in family medicine" residents with advanced behavioral science skills and abilities who globally integrate behavioral science into primary care.

Informed consent and patient videotaping.

PURPOSE: To determine whether videotaping consent forms used in family medicine residencies meet the criteria for informed consent, adhere to published guidelines for videotaping patients, and are written at a suitable reading level. METHOD: Three reviewers independently evaluated videotaping consent forms obtained from 20 family practice residencies to determine whether they included the elements of informed consent and conformed to published guidelines for ethical videotaping. The reading level of each consent form was also determined using a standardized assessment. RESULTS: Depending on the reviewer, only one to three of the 20 consent forms were judged adequate in providing a patient with enough information to make an informed choice. Specific aspects of voluntariness were absent from most of the forms. In addition, the reading level was, on average, well above recommended levels for patient comprehension. CONCLUSION: Most of the videotaping consent forms analyzed in this study did not provide adequate information to assist patients in making a voluntary, informed choice to be videotaped. The absence of this information raises the potential for violations of patient privacy and confidentiality.