New Tools for Resident Recruiting Season: A CERA Survey of Family Medicine Residency Program Directors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: As the family medicine community continues to adapt to interview season changes secondary to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, discussions are underway regarding new options to improve the overall success and satisfaction of resident recruiting. Tools such as preference signaling, interview capping, and supplementary applications are options that have been investigated, and in some cases implemented, by other specialties for their recruiting seasons. Family medicine as a specialty is now actively scrutinizing the benefits and drawbacks of these tools. METHODS: The fall 2021 CERA program directors' omnibus online cross-sectional survey invited family medicine program directors to provide their perceptions of these tools. Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regressions were conducted. RESULTS: Two-thirds of the 262 program director respondents (42% response rate, n=184) supported policies for preference signaling and a national interview cap; however, support was mixed for the use of supplemental applications. CONCLUSIONS: Because the survey results indicated a high level of support for using these innovative new tools during recruitment season, family medicine should take action to implement these programs/policies.

Financial Considerations After a Fully-Virtual Interview Season: A CERA Study of Family Medicine Residency Program Directors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic led to the institution of virtual interviewing for nearly all family medicine residency programs in 2020 and 2021. This paradigm shift challenged the perspectives of family medicine program directors across the United States, in part because of the financial impact on the operations of many residency programs. We sought to investigate program directors' opinions on the 2020-2021 interview season, as well whether future interview season planning would be influenced by the financial outcomes of this season. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey, as part of the fall 2021 CERA Program Director omnibus online survey. Family medicine program directors were invited by email to participate. We conducted multivariate logistic regression of the likelihood of supporting a fully-virtual interviewing model. RESULTS: The module survey response rate was 41.7% (263/631); 91.3% of programs reported conducting a fully-virtual 2020-2021 interview season. Program directors who reported that the cost savings recouped from virtual versus in-person interviewing could be used for other residency operating costs (32.4%) were almost four times more likely to support moving to a fully-virtual interviewing model (odds ratio: 3.94, confidence interval: 1.69-9.18). When compared to a residency program's benefit from meeting and assessing applicants in person, applicants benefitting from less financial burden during a fully-virtual interview season was not seen by responding program directors as a significant reason to remain virtual. CONCLUSIONS: While family medicine residency program directors who recouped interview expenses during fully-virtual recruiting seasons are more likely to support ongoing, fully-virtual models, financial incentivization did not overall impact support for virtual interviewing among program directors with statistical significance.

Factors That Influence Student Choice in Family Medicine A National Focus Group.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Family Medicine for America's Health Workforce and Education Team aims to increase the number of medical students choosing family medicine to address the projected primary care physician shortage. This aim can be achieved by developing a well-trained primary care workforce. Our student- and resident-led FMAHealth work group aimed to identify factors that influenced fourth-year medical students' choice to become family physicians. The secondary objective compared such factors between the 10 medical schools with the highest percentage of students matching into family medicine and non-top 10 medical schools. METHODS: Fourth-year medical students nationwide participated in 90-minute virtual focus groups. Reviewers coded deidentified transcriptions and identified key themes and subthemes that were found to influence student choice. RESULTS: Fifty-five medical students participated in focus groups over a 2-year period. Three key themes were found to influence students: perspective, choice, and exposure. Subthemes included: (1) the importance of high-quality preceptors practicing full-scope family medicine, (2) the value of a rural experience, and (3) institutional support to pursue family medicine. Physician compensation and loan repayment concerns were not major factors influencing student choice. CONCLUSIONS: Many factors influence student choice of family medicine including preceptors, clinical exposures, and institutional support. These factors varied by institution and many were found to be different between top 10 and non-top 10 schools. Addressing these factors will help increase students' choice of family medicine and reduce the primary care shortage.

Collaborating to Achieve the Optimal Family Medicine Workforce.

When the Family Medicine for America's Health (FMAHealth) Workforce Education and Development Tactic Team (WEDTT) began its work in December 2014, one of its charges from the FMAHealth Board was to increase family physician production to achieve the diverse primary care workforce the United States needs. The WEDTT created a multilevel interfunctional team to work on this priority initiative that included a focus on student, resident, and early-career physician involvement and leadership development. One major outcome was the adoption of a shared aim, known as 25 x 2030. Through a collaboration of the WEDTT and the eight leading family medicine sponsoring organizations, the 25 x 2030 aim is to increase the percentage of US allopathic and osteopathic medical students choosing family medicine from 12% to 25% by the year 2030. The WEDTT developed a package of change ideas based on its theory of what will drive the achievement of 25 x 2030, which led to specific projects completed by the WEDTT and key collaborators. The WEDTT offered recommendations for the future based on its 3-year effort, including policy efforts to improve the social accountability of US medical schools, strategy centered around younger generations' desires rather than past experiences, active involvement by students and residents, engagement of early-career physicians as role models, focus on simultaneously building and diversifying the family medicine workforce, and security of the scope future family physicians want to practice. The 25 x 2030 initiative, carried forward by the family medicine organizations, will use collective impact to adopt a truly collaborative approach toward achieving this much needed goal for family medicine.