scholarly journals Meaningful Partnerships: Stages of Development of a Patient and Family Advisory Council at a Family Medicine Residency Clinic (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey D Schlaudecker ◽  
Keesha Goodnow ◽  
Anna Goroncy ◽  
Reid Hartmann ◽  
Saundra Regan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Family Medicine ◽  
Residency Training Program ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Advisory Council ◽  
First Year ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Family Medicine Residency ◽  
Working Together ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Improve Health

BACKGROUND Partnering with patients and families is a crucial step in optimizing health. A patient and family advisory council (PFAC) is a group of patients and family members working together collaboratively with providers and staff to improve health care. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to describe the creation of a PFAC within a family medicine residency clinic. To understand the successful development of a PFAC, challenges, potential barriers, and positive outcomes of a meaningful partnership will be reported. METHODS The stages of PFAC development include leadership team formation and initial training, PFAC member recruitment, and meeting launch. Following a description of each stage, outcomes are outlined and lessons learned are discussed. PFAC members completed an open-ended survey and participated in a focus group interview at the completion of the first year. Interviewees provided feedback regarding (1) favorite aspects or experiences, (2) PFAC impact on a family medicine clinic, and (3) future projects to improve care. Common themes will be presented. RESULTS The composition of the PFAC consisted of 18 advisors, including 8 patient and family advisors, 4 staff advisors, 4 resident physician advisors, and 2 faculty physician advisors. The average meeting attendance was 12 members over 11 meetings in the span of the first year. A total of 13 out of 13 (100%) surveyed participants were satisfied with their experience serving on the PFAC. CONCLUSIONS PFACs provide a platform for patient engagement and an opportunity to drive home key concepts around collaboration within a residency training program. A framework for the creation of a PFAC, along with lessons learned, can be utilized to advise other residency programs in developing and evaluating meaningful PFACs.

scholarly journals The Residency Performance Index: An Effort at Residency Quality Assessment and Improvement in Family Medicine

2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 756-759 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grant S. Hoekzema ◽  
Lisa Maxwell ◽  
Joseph W. Gravel ◽  
Walter W. Mills ◽  
William Geiger
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Family Medicine ◽  
Performance Index ◽  
Program Improvement ◽  
First Year ◽  
Clinical Experiences ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Family Medicine Residency ◽  
Lack Of Information ◽  
Quality Improvement Tool

Abstract Background Residency programs are increasingly being asked to defend their quality, and that of the residents they produce. Yet “residency quality” is a construct that has not been well defined, with no accepted standards other than meeting accreditation standards. In 2009, the Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors developed a strategic plan that included the goal of raising the quality of family medicine training. Objective We describe the development of this quality improvement tool, which we called the residency performance index (RPI), and its first year of use by family medicine residency programs. We describe the use of the tool as a “dashboard” to facilitate program self-improvement. Intervention Using program metrics specific to family medicine training, and benchmark criteria for these metrics, the RPI was launched in 2012 to help programs identify strengths and areas for improvement in their educational activities and resident clinical experiences that could be tracked and reviewed as part of the annual program evaluation. Results Approximately 100 program directors began using the tool and 70 finished the process, and were provided aggregate data. Initial review of this experience revealed difficulties with collecting data, and lack of information on graduates' scope of practice. It also showed the potential usefulness of the tool as a program improvement mechanism. Conclusions The RPI is a new quality improvement tool for family medicine residency programs. Although some initial challenges need to be addressed, it has the promise to aid family medicine residency in its internal improvement efforts.

scholarly journals Six Years’ Experience Using Specialty National Residency Index: An Early Dashboard to Document Change Over Time

2021 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-47
Author(s):  
Grant S. Hoekzema ◽  
Walter Mills ◽  
Lisa Maxwell ◽  
Joseph W. Gravel ◽  
James David Honeycutt
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Family Medicine ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
National Level ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Scope Of Practice ◽  
Aggregated Data ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Family Medicine Residency ◽  
Over Time

Background and Objectives: A decade ago, the Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors developed the Residency Performance Index (RPI) as a novel dashboard of metrics to support residency programs’ quality improvement efforts. Although the RPI has since been discontinued, we sought to identify lessons learned from an analysis of 6 years of data collected while the RPI was in use to inform future quality and accreditation efforts implemented at the national level. Methods: The RPI collected data from 2012-2017 for nearly 250 distinct family medicine residency programs, identifying strengths and areas for improvement. Eighty-two programs provided data for 3 or more years of measures allowing analysis of improvement trends. Results: For participating programs, aggregate data over 6 years indicated the majority had stable leadership and accreditation. Total family medicine center (FMC) visits by graduates and resident visit demographics were robust. Graduate scope of practice was consistent with nationally publicized trends. Programs hit most aspirational targets more than 40% of the time. However, analysis for those programs with 3 or more years of data revealed that the tool did not result in significant changes for most metrics. Linear regression analysis showed improvements in total patient visits, visits under 10 years of age, and certain procedural competencies for those programs with 3 or more years of data. Conclusions: The RPI was the first and only nationally utilized family medicine graduate medical education quality improvement tool. Individual programs did not show substantial change in quantifiable metrics over time despite limited evidence of select programmatic improvements. Nationally, aggregated data provided insight into scope of practice and other areas of interest in residency training. Further efforts in provision of residency improvement tools are important to support programs given the increasing complexity and high stakes of family medicine residency education.

scholarly journals Maternity Care Tracks at US Family Medicine Residency Programs

2021 ◽  
Vol 53 (10) ◽  
pp. 857-863
Author(s):  
Steven E. Roskos ◽  
Tyler W. Barreto ◽  
Julie P. Phillips ◽  
Valerie J. King ◽  
W. Suzanne Eidson-Ton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Family Medicine ◽  
Maternity Care ◽  
Underserved Populations ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Family Medicine Residency ◽  
Survey Response Rate ◽  
Care Training ◽  
Practice Methods ◽  
Residency Program Directors ◽  
The Relationship

Background and Objectives: The number of family physicians providing maternity care continues to decline, jeopardizing access to needed care for underserved populations. Accreditation changes in 2014 provided an opportunity to create family medicine residency maternity care tracks, providing comprehensive maternity care training only for interested residents. We examined the relationship between maternity care tracks and residents’ educational experiences and postgraduate practice. Methods: We included questions on maternity care tracks in an omnibus survey of family medicine residency program directors (PDs). We divided respondent programs into three categories: “Track,” “No Track Needed,” and “No Track.” We compared these program types by their characteristics, number of resident deliveries, and number of graduates practicing maternity care. Results: The survey response rate was 40%. Of the responding PDs, 79 (32%) represented Track programs, 55 (22%) No Track Needed programs, and 94 (38%) No Track programs. Residents in a track attended more deliveries than those not in a track (at Track programs) and those at No Track Needed and No Track programs. No Track Needed programs reported the highest proportion of graduates accepting positions providing inpatient maternity care in 2019 (21%), followed by Track programs (17%) and No Track programs (5%; P<.001). Conclusions: Where universal robust maternity care education is not feasible, maternity care tracks are an excellent alternative to provide maternity care training and produce graduates who will practice maternity care. Programs that cannot offer adequate experience to achieve competence in inpatient maternity care may consider instituting a maternity care track.

scholarly journals Residency Setting Association With Resident Substance Use Disorder Training: A CERA Secondary Data Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 198-201
Author(s):  
Joshua St. Louis ◽  
Emma Worringer ◽  
Wendy B. Barr
Keyword(s):  
Substance Use ◽  
Family Medicine ◽  
Residency Program ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
Resident Training ◽  
Addiction Medicine ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Family Medicine Residency

Background and Objectives: As the opioid crisis worsens across the United States, the factors that impact physician training in management of substance use disorders become more relevant. A thorough understanding of these factors is necessary for family medicine residency programs to inform their own residency curricula. The objective of our study was to identify factors that correlate with increased residency training in addiction medicine across a broad sample of family medicine residencies. Methods: We performed secondary analysis of a national family medicine residency program director survey conducted in 2015-2016 (CERA Survey PD-8). We obtained data from the Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA) Data Clearinghouse. We analyzed residency clinic site designation as a patient-centered medical home (PCMH), federally-qualified health center (FQHC), or both, for their correlation with faculty member possession of DEA-X buprenorphine waiver license, as well as required residency curriculum in addiction medicine. Results: Residency programs situated in an FQHC were more likely to have faculty members who possessed DEA-X buprenorphine waiver licenses (P=.025). Residency clinics that were both a PCMH as well as an FQHC also correlated strongly (P=.001). Furthermore, residencies with faculty who possessed a DEA-X license were significantly more likely to have a required curriculum in addiction medicine (P=.002). Conclusions: Our quantitative secondary analysis of CERA survey data of family medicine residency program directors revealed that resident training in addiction medicine is strongly correlated with both residency clinic setting (FQHC or FQHC/PCMH) as well as residency faculty possession of DEA-X licenses.

Annual block scheduling for family medicine residency programs with continuity clinic considerations

2016 ◽  
Vol 48 (9) ◽  
pp. 797-811 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan F. Bard ◽  
Zhichao Shu ◽  
Douglas J. Morrice ◽  
Luci K. Leykum ◽  
Ramin Poursani
Keyword(s):  
Family Medicine ◽  
Block Scheduling ◽  
Continuity Clinic ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Family Medicine Residency

scholarly journals An Update of Oral Health Curricula in US Family Medicine Residency Programs

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (6) ◽  
pp. 437-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh Silk ◽  
Judith A. Savageau ◽  
Kate Sullivan ◽  
Gail Sawosik ◽  
Min Wang
Keyword(s):  
Oral Health ◽  
Family Medicine ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Program Directors ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Health Curriculum ◽  
Family Medicine Residency ◽  
Important Health ◽  
Dental Professional ◽  
Residency Program Directors

Background and Objectives: National initiatives have encouraged oral health training for family physicians and other nondental providers for almost 2 decades. Our national survey assesses progress of family medicine residency programs on this important health topic since our last survey in 2011. Methods: Family medicine residency program directors (PDs) completed an online survey covering various themes including number of hours of oral health (OH) teaching, topics covered, barriers, evaluation, positive influences, and program demographics. Results: Compared to 2011, more PDs feel OH should be addressed by physicians (86% in 2017 vs 79% in 2011), yet fewer programs are teaching OH (81% vs 96%) with fewer hours overall (31% vs 45% with 4 or more hours). Satisfaction with the competence of graduating residents in OH significantly decreased (17% in 2017 vs 32% in 2011). Program directors who report graduates being well prepared to answer board questions on oral health topics are more likely to have an oral health champion (P<0.001) and report satisfaction with the graduates’ level of oral health competency (P<0.001). Programs with an oral health champion, or having a relationship with a state or national oral health coalition, or having routine teaching from a dental professional are significantly more likely to have more hours of oral health curriculum (P<0.001). Conclusions: Family medicine PDs are more aware of the importance of oral health, yet less oral health is being taught in residency programs. Developing more faculty oral health champions and connecting programs to dental faculty and coalitions may help reduce this educational void.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document