Search

Background Development, evaluation and dissemination of primary care innovations are essential for the future of health care; however, primary care physicians including family physician, lag behind hospital-based physicians in research productivity. Family medicine residencies struggle to implement scholarly skills training programmes for busy family physicians. The Primary Care Scholarly Development Program ( PC- SDP) aimed to empower residents to incorporate innovation with scholarship into future practice, by facilitating successful resident scholarly projects and reducing perceived barriers. Methods Educational intervention. The required PC- SDP was piloted through a family medicine residency programme in the USA. Key elements included: rigorous but achievable requirements; emphasis on Boyer's scholarship of application, teaching and discovery; resident engagement, through the support of their 'professional passions'; basic research training; multilevel mentoring; and modest curriculum time. Evaluation. A mixed-methods longitudinal evaluation included: (1) a qualitative study of intervention class; (2) assessing the scholarly output of the intervention class versus the comparison class; and (3) a follow-up survey of both groups after 3 or 4 years. Results Data were analysed from all 25 residents in the classes of 2008 and 2009 (12 intervention; 13 comparison). Qualitative interviews of residents from the intervention group revealed that their initial feelings of trepidation about scholarly work gave way to feelings of accomplishment and confidence in their ability to integrate scholarship into busy careers. Residents in the intervention group had a greater volume of scholarly output at graduation, and follow-up surveys suggest that they value incorporating scholarship into their careers more so than physicians from the comparison group. Discussion The PC- SDP seems to foster enthusiasm for scholarship by supporting residents' professional passions and facilitating successful projects. This may foster improved participation in scholarship in future clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a shortage of physicians to care for underserved populations. Medical educators at The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University have used five years of Health Resources and Services Administration funding to train medical students to provide outstanding primary care for underserved populations. The grant has two major goals: 1) to increase the number of graduating medical students who practice primary care in underserved communities ("Professional Development"); and 2) to prepare all medical school graduates to care for underserved patients, regardless of specialty choice ("Curriculum Development"). Professional Development, including a new scholarly concentration and an eight-year primary care pipeline, has been achieved in partnership with the Program in Liberal Medical Education, the medical school's Admissions Committee, and an Area Health Education Center. Curriculum Development has involved systematic recruitment of clinical training sites and diseasespecific curricula including tools for providing care to vulnerable populations. A comprehensive, longitudinal evaluation is ongoing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model is considered important for the future of primary care in the USA, it remains unclear how best to prepare trainees for PCMH practice and leadership. Following a baseline study, the authors added a new required PCMH block rotation and resident team to an existing longitudinal PCMH immersion and didactic curriculum within a Level 3-certified PCMH, aiming for “enhanced situated learning”. All 39 residents enrolled in a USA family medicine residency program during the first year of curricular implementation completed this new 4-week rotation. This study examines the effects of this rotation after 1 year. Methods: A total of 39 intervention and 13 comparison residents were eligible participants. This multimethod study included: 1) individual interviews of postgraduate year (PGY) 3 intervention vs PGY3 comparison residents, assessing residents’ PCMH attitudes, knowledge, and clinical experience, and 2) routine rotation evaluations. Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analyzed using immersion/crystallization. Rotation evaluations were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis of free text responses. Results: Authors analyzed 23 interviews (88%) and 26 rotation evaluations (67%). Intervention PGY3s’ interviews revealed more nuanced understanding of PCMH concepts and more experience with system-level PCMH tasks than those of comparison PGY3s. More intervention PGY3s rated themselves “extremely prepared” to implement PCMH than comparison PGY3s; however, most self-rated “somewhat prepared”. Their reflections demonstrated deeper understanding of PCMH implementation and challenges than comparison PGY3s but inadequate experience to directly see the results of successful solutions. Rotation evaluations from PGY1, PGY2, and PGY3s revealed strengths and several areas for improvement. Conclusion: Adding one 4-week block rotation to existing longitudinal training appears to improve residents’ PCMH knowledge, skills, and experience from “basic” to “intermediate”. However, this training level appears inadequate for PCMH leadership or for teaching junior learners. Further study is needed to determine the optimum training for different settings.