Search

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.

Background and Objectives: The I3 POP Collaborative sought to improve health of patients attending North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia primary care teaching practices using the triple aim framework of better quality, appropriate utilization, and enhanced patient experience. We examined change in triple aim measures over 3 years, and identified correlates of improvement. Methods: Twenty-nine teaching practices representing 23 residency programs participated. The Institute for Health Care Improvement Breakthrough Series Collaborative model was tailored to focus on at least one triple aim goal and programs submitted data annually on all collaborative measures. Outcome measures included quality (chronic illness, prevention); utilization (hospitalization, emergency department visits, referrals) and patient experience (access, continuity). Participant interviews explored supports and barriers to improvement. Results: Six of 29 practices (21%) were unable to extract measures from their electronic health records (EHR). All of the remaining 23 practices reported improvement in at least one measure, with 11 seeing at least 10% improvement; seven (24%) improved measures in all three triple aim areas, with two experiencing at least 10% improvement. Practices with a greater number of patient visits were more likely to show improved measures (odds ratio [OR] 10.8, 95% confidence interval [CI]: .68-172.2, P=0.03). Practice interviews revealed that engaged leadership and systems supports were more common in higher performing practices. Conclusions: Simultaneous attainment of improvement in all three triple aim goals by teaching practices is difficult. I3 POP practices that were able to pull and report data improved on at least one measure. Future work needs to focus on cultivating leadership and systems supporting large scale improvement.

The I3 POP Collaborative's goal is to improve care of populations served by primary care residencies in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia by dramatically improving patients' experience, quality of care, and cost-effectiveness. We examine residency baseline triple aim measures, compare with national benchmarks, and identify practice characteristics associated with data reporting.We used a cross-sectional design, with 27 primary care residency programs caring for over 300,000 patients. Outcome measures were obtained via data pulls from electronic health records and practice management system submitted by residencies; they include quality measure sets for chronic illness and prevention, patient experience (usual provder continuity and time to third available), and utilization (emergency visits, hospitalizations, referrals, high-end radiology).Thirteen practices (48%) reported all required baseline measures. We found associations between data reporting ability with registry use (59% versus 0%) and having a faculty member involved in data management (69% versus 29%). Reported measures varied widely; examples include colorectal cancer screening (median: 61%, range: 28%--80%), provider continuity (median: 52%, range: 1%--68%), subspecialty referral rate (median: 24%, range: 10%--51%). Seventy percent of patient-centered medical homes (PCMH) recognized practices had usual provider continuity (UPC)or = collaborative median versus 0% of non-PCMH recognized practices. Median data were similar to national comparisons for chronic disease measures, lower for prevention and better for utilization.Baseline triple aim data are highly variable among residencies, but residency care is comparable to available national standards. Registry use and faculty leadership in data management are critical success factors for assessing practice performance.