Search

Background: The potential for machine learning (ML) to enhance the efficiency of medical specialty boards has not been explored. We applied unsupervised ML to identify archetypes among American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) Diplomates regarding their practice characteristics and motivations for participating in continuing certification, then examined associations between motivation patterns and key recertification outcomes., Methods: Diplomates responding to the 2017 to 2021 ABFM Family Medicine continuing certification examination surveys selected motivations for choosing to continue certification. We used Chi-squared tests to examine difference proportions of Diplomates failing their first recertification examination attempt who endorsed different motivations for maintaining certification. Unsupervised ML techniques were applied to generate clusters of physicians with similar practice characteristics and motivations for recertifying. Controlling for physician demographic variables, we used logistic regression to examine the effect of motivation clusters on recertification examination success and validated the ML clusters by comparison with a previously created classification schema developed by experts., Results: ML clusters largely recapitulated the intrinsic/extrinsic framework devised by experts previously. However, the identified clusters achieved a more equal partitioning of Diplomates into homogenous groups. In both ML and human clusters, physicians with mainly extrinsic or mixed motivations had lower rates of examination failure than those who were intrinsically motivated., Discussion: This study demonstrates the feasibility of using ML to supplement and enhance human interpretation of board certification data. We discuss implications of this demonstration study for the interaction between specialty boards and physician Diplomates., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None., (© Copyright 2024 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Purpose: This mixed methods study sought to describe the extent to which family physicians in urban communities serve socially vulnerable patients and to better understand their practices, their challenges, and the structural supports that could facilitate their patient care., Methods: We conducted a quantitative analysis of questionnaire data from 100% of US physicians recertifying for family medicine from 2017 to 2020. We conducted qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews with 22 physician owners of urban, small, independent practices who reported that the majority of their patients were socially vulnerable., Results: In 2020, in urban areas across the United States, 19.3% of family physicians served in independent practices with 1 to 5 clinicians, down from 22.6% in 2017. Nearly one-half of these physicians reported that >10% of their patients were socially vulnerable. Interviews with 22 physicians who reported that the majority of their patients were socially vulnerable revealed 5 themes: (1) substantial time spent addressing access issues and social determinants of health, (2) minimal support from health care entities, such as independent practice associations and health plans, and insufficient connection to community-based organizations, (3) myriad financial challenges, (4) serious concerns about the future, and (5) deep personal commitment to serving socially vulnerable patients in independent practice., Conclusions: Small independent practices serving vulnerable patients in urban communities are surviving because deeply committed physicians are making personal sacrifices. Health equity-focused policies could decrease the burden on these physicians and bolster independent practices so that socially vulnerable patients continue to have options when seeking primary care., (© 2024 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Background: Rural US populations face a chronic shortage of physicians and an increasing gap in life expectancy compared to urban US populations, creating a need to understand how to increase residency graduates' desire to practice in such areas., Objective: This study quantifies associations between the amount of rural training during family medicine (FM) residencies and subsequent rural work., Methods: American Medical Association (AMA) Masterfile, AMA graduate medical education (GME) supplement, American Board of Family Medicine certification, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services hospital costs data were merged and analyzed. Multiple logistic regression measured associations between rural training and rural or urban practice in 2018 by all 12 162 clinically active physicians who completed a US FM residency accredited by the ACGME between 2008 and 2012. Analyses adjusted for key potential confounders (age, sex, program size, region, and medical school location and type) and clustering by resident program., Results: Most (91%, 11 011 of 12 162) residents had no rural training. A minority (14%, 1721 of 12 162) practiced in a rural location in 2018. Residents with no rural training comprised 80% (1373 of 1721) of those in rural practice in 2018. Spending more than half of residency training months in rural areas was associated with substantially increased odds of rural practice (OR 5.3-6.3). Only 4% (424 of 12 162) of residents spent more than half their training in rural locations, and only 5% (26 of 436) of FM training programs had residents training mostly in rural settings or community-based clinics., Conclusions: There is a linear gradient between increasing levels of rural exposure in FM GME and subsequent rural work., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Female physicians earn less than their male counterparts, and many explanatory factors have been offered to account for these differences. An analysis of the 2019 American Board of Family Medicine New Graduate Survey Data demonstrates that women make 16% less than men, regardless of experience or hours worked., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none., (© Copyright 2022 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

INTRODUCTION Among academic medical disciplines, Family Medicine (FM) research is notable for its breadth of health-care content areas, making it particularly susceptible to interdisciplinary collaboration. AIM This study characterises the degree and typology of such collaborations, and determines whether collaboration patterns are associated with citation frequency and funding. METHODS This cross-sectional study describes collaboration patterns for publications from 2015 indexed in Web of Science and authored by faculty from United States (US) departments of family medicine (DFMs). We determined mean number of total and FM authors per publication, and percentage of publications with FM first or last authors. Publications were categorised by inclusion of non-FM faculty author(s) and number of DFMs represented. RESULTS Overall, 919 FM faculty from 109 DFMs authored a total of 1872 unique publications in 2015. There was an average of 6.8 authors per publication with 1.4 authors being FM faculty. FM faculty were first author on 26.2% and last author on 29.2% of publications. Of all publications, 0.9% were single FM Author; 1.0% were same DFM; 0.3% were multiple DFMs; 72.4% were single FM Author+non-FM; 19.3% were same DFM+non-FM; 6.0% were multiple DFMs+non-FM. FM publications with non-FM faculty authors showed higher citation rates, higher rates of funding, and lower rates of having no funding source. DISCUSSION Most FM publications involved non-FM faculty authors. Collaborations involving non-FM authors were correlated with higher impact publications and projects that were more likely to have been funded.

Purpose: The objective of this study was to identify demographic and practice characteristics associated with family physicians' provision of care to children including a subgroup analysis of those who see pediatric patients younger or older than 5 years of age., Methods: This cross-sectional study used data from US family physicians taking the American Board of Family Medicine continuous certification examination registration questionnaire in 2017 and 2018. The outcome of interest was self-reported care of pediatric patients in practice. We performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression examining the association between various demographic and practice characteristics with the outcome of interest. We performed subgroup analyses for physicians seeing patients under 5 years old and from 5 to 18 years old., Results: Among the 11,674 family physicians included in the final analysis, 9744 (83.8%) saw pediatric patients. Physician- and practice-level factors associated with seeing pediatric patients included rural practice, younger age, non-Hispanic White race/ethnicity, independent practice ownership, nonsolo practice, lower pediatrician density, and higher income geographic area. More family physicians saw 5-to-18-year-olds than < 5-year-olds (83.6% vs 68.2%; P  < .001), and the factors associated with pediatric care were similar among these age subgroups., Conclusions: A majority of continuous certification US family physicians see pediatric patients in practice; however, rates of pediatric care vary widely based on various demographic and practice characteristics. Efforts to maintain a broad scope of practice for US family physicians will require exploration of the underlying mechanisms driving these practice patterns., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None., (© Copyright 2021 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

A decade of practice transformation, consolidation, and payment experimentation have highlighted the need for team-based primary care, but little is known about how team composition is changing over time. Surveys of Family Physicians (FPs) from 2014-18 reveal they continue to work alongside inter-professional team members and suggest slow but steady growth in the proportion of FPs working with nurses, behaviorists, clinical pharmacists, and social workers., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: None., (© Copyright 2020 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Gender disparities in medical publication have been demonstrated in several specialties. This descriptive bibliometric analysis aims to determine the gender ratio of scholarly authorship at the Robert Graham Center (RGC) over an 11-year period. We examined publications by RGC researchers and assessed first, second, and last author gender. Of 229 publications, 65.5% had a male first author and 34.5% had a female first author. Of the 217 publications with a last author, 13.4% had a female last author. This study aims to inform the broader discussion about authorship gender parity in academic medicine using a one-site case-study approach., (© 2020 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Family medicine residents who graduate from Federally Qualified Health Center-aligned Teaching Health Center (THC) training residencies are nearly twice as likely to pursue employment in safety-net settings compared with non-THC graduates. This trend has been consistent over the past few years, suggesting that the program is fulfilling its mission to strengthen primary care in underserved settings., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: Dr. Peterson is an employee of the American Board of Family Medicine., (© Copyright 2019 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background and Objectives: Inadequate resources have led to family medicine research divisions at varying stages of development. The purpose of this analysis was to identify the factors that family medicine research "bright spot" departments perceive to be crucial to their success., Methods: In this qualitative analysis, we identified bright spot dimensions and used a snowball sampling approach to identify medical school-based departments considered to be research bright spots. With 16 leaders from eight departments, we conducted semistructured interviews, covering historical events, leadership, partnerships, mentors, faculty selection, and training. We recorded and transcribed interviews and used a template-driven approach to data analysis, iteratively defining and modifying codes. At least two reviewers independently coded each interview, and coding discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached., Results: We identified the following themes: (1) Leadership was committed to research; (2) Research was built around teams of researchers; (3) Interdisciplinary teams facilitated by partnerships allowed the department to tackle complex problems; (4) The convergence of researchers and clinicians ensured that the research was relevant to family medicine; (5) Departments had cultures that engendered trust, leading to effective collaboration; (6) These teams were composed of intrinsically motivated individuals supported by mentorship and resources; (7) When deciding which questions to pursue, departments balanced the question's alignment with the individual researcher's passion, relevance to family medicine, and fundability., Conclusions: A commitment to research from an engaged chair, partnerships, integrating front-line clinicians, and supporting intrinsically motivated individuals were important for bright spots. Applying these concepts may be an important strategy for generating knowledge.

Background and Objectives: Family medicine is continuously advanced by a reinforcing research enterprise. In the United States, each national family medicine organization contributes to the discipline's research foundations. We sought to map the unique and interorganizational roles of the eight US family medicine professional organizations participating in Family Medicine for America's Health (FMAHealth) in supporting family medicine research., Methods: We interviewed leaders and reviewed supporting materials from organizations participating in FMAHealth. We explored existing activities, capacity, and collaboration. We identified areas of strength and opportunities for growth and synergy with respect to how the family of family medicine nurtures family medicine research., Results: The FMAHealth organizations support certain aspects of the family medicine research infrastructure. Six domains were identified through this work: showcasing scholarship, communication and dissemination, workforce development, data-driven initiatives, performing primary research, and advocacy for family medicine research. Each organization's areas of emphasis differ, but we found substantial collaboration on initiatives across organizations, possibly attributable to the fact that many members belong to more than one organization., Conclusions: Deliberate contributions to each of the six domains identified herein will be important for the future success of family medicine research. Key opportunity areas described here include coordinated and strategic advocacy for increased funding for family medicine research, dedicated investment in training opportunities, protected effort to grow the next generation of family medicine researchers, pilot funding to build a research base for future high-impact research, and infrastructure to facilitate cross-institutional collaboration and data sharing.

Background and Objectives: While prior efforts have assessed the scope of family medicine research, the methods have differed, and the efforts have not been routinely repeated. The purpose of this analysis was to quantify publications, journals, citations, and funding of US family medicine faculty and identify factors associated with these outcomes., Methods: We identified faculty in US departments of family medicine through website searches and performed a cross-sectional study. We included 2015 publications in peer-reviewed journals indexed in Web of Science (a database that aggregates a wide range of catalogs). We calculated descriptive statistics assessing the publications, journals, and citations for family medicine faculty. We conducted bivariate analyses by department region, department size, public/private status, faculty title, and faculty degree., Results: We identified 6,738 faculty at 134 departments, with 15% of faculty having any publications. Family medicine faculty published 3,002 times (mean of 2.9 among those with any publications). The mean number of publications was highest for faculty in departments in the West (3.7), in the third quartile for size (3.6), with a professor title (4.0), and with combined MD or DO/PhD degrees (4.3). Faculty published 84% of the time in non-family medicine journals and were cited 13,548 times. Faculty listed federal funding for over half (52%) of the times they published., Conclusions: Publications from family medicine faculty are not concentrated in family medicine journals and are being referenced by others. These figures are larger than prior estimates and should be tracked over time.

Family Medicine (FM) is the care of unselected patients with undifferentiated problems in the settings where people need care in our communities. It is intellectually challenging, providing breadth and depth unparalleled in other areas of medical practice. In one survey only 19% of Israeli students reported being interested in FM. Students interested in FM had greater interest in bedside and direct long-term patient care. Students not planning FM residency training had preconceived notions that the discipline had lower academic opportunities and prestige. What can be done to increase student interest in careers in FM?This commentary includes perspectives of family practice leaders from several countries:The problem isn't the students it is the scope of practice and expectations both of which can and should change if FM in Israel wants to stay viable. The scope of FM should be broadened to include more procedures and new technologies. This may also increase the earning potential of Family Practitioners (FPs). Payment policy and credentialing barriers should be change to expand scope of practice and allow FPs to practice at the full extent of their training.FM should offer clear professional horizon with potential for many sub-specialties and areas of focus. The Israeli HMOs, the Ministry of Health and the Israeli Association of FM should invest heavily in building academic departments of FM and promoting research. This will enhance the image of FM in the eyes of the students, the profession and the public.The clinical work environment should be improved by reducing bureaucratic assignments, such as issuing certifications, dealing with quality measurements and renewing chronic prescriptions. Much of this work can be done by nurse practitioners (NPs) working as part of an FP-led team. These NPs can also take care of patients with limited complaints to make the work of the FP more challenging and attractive.Training must include opportunities to develop longitudinal relationships with patients and families across problems and over time. It is these relationships that add value to the process of care, improve patient outcomes and provide meaning to sustain clinical careers that meet the needs of patients and communities.

Rising educational debt may discourage entry into primary care and practice in safety net settings, but little is known about participation in loan repayment programs that are thought to be part of the solution. A survey of 2052 recent family physician residency graduates found that 30% pursued loan repayment, only a portion of which is tied to service obligations, suggesting opportunities for research and areas for the attention of policymakers., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared., (© Copyright 2018 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background and Objectives: Team-based care with health coaches has improved the quality and cost effectiveness of chronic disease management and prevention. Clinical health coaches partner with patients to identify health goals, create action plans, overcome barriers to change, reinforce physician recommendations, and coordinate care. It is important to train resident physicians to practice in team-based settings. To date, there have been no studies of resident family physician exposure to health coaches., Methods: We surveyed 465 residency directors through a larger omnibus survey sent out by CERA; the response rate was 53.7%. Directors were asked about resident exposure to health coaches, the types of patients seen by health coaches, and the training background of the health coaches. We used chi-square tests to examine the relationship among these variables and program characteristics including status as a patient-centered medical home., Results: Almost two-thirds of the programs reported at least some residents had exposure to health coaches. Residents who trained in continuity sites with a PCMH certification of level 3 were more likely to have any exposure to health coaches (P&lt;.05). There were multiple significant relationships between populations of patients seen and the training background of health coaches., Conclusions: To improve quality, reduce costs, and become more patient centered, primary care is rapidly transforming into a team sport with a broadening roster of new players, including health coaches. This study documents positive rates of resident exposure to health coaches but also great variability in types and amount of exposure that merit further investigation and exploration of ways to grow family medicine residency contact with a diversifying practice team.

Board certification is associated with higher quality care. We sought to determine the rates and predictors of attrition from certification among family physicians who achieved initial certification with the American Board of Family Medicine from 1980 through 2000. In this period, 5.6% of family physicians never attempted recertification, with the rate increasing from 4.9% between 1990 and 1995 to 5.7% from 1996 to 2000. Being male, an international medical graduate, or 30 years of age or older at initial certification was associated with not recertifying. With information about those likely to leave certification, the board can design and implement interventions that minimize attrition., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: Drs Peterson and Puffer are employed by the American Board of Family Medicine., (© 2018 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Purpose: Little is known about the attitudes toward and adoption of telehealth services among family physicians (FPs), the largest primary care physician group. We conducted a national survey of FPs, randomly sampled from membership organization files, to investigate use of and barriers to using telehealth services., Methods: Using bivariate analyses, we examined how telehealth usage affected FPs' identified barriers to using telehealth services. Logistic regressions show the factors associated both with using telehealth services and with barriers to using telehealth services., Results: Surveys reached 4980 FPs; 1557 surveys were eligible for analysis (31% response rate). Among FPs, 15% reported using telehealth services during 2014. After controlling for the characteristics of the physicians and their practice, FPs who were based in a rural setting, worked in a practice owned by an integrated health system or other ownership structure, and provided hospital/urgent/emergency care were more likely to use telehealth. Physician and practice characteristics by telehealth use status, sex of the physician, practice location, years in practice, care provided, and practice ownership were associated with the barriers identified., Conclusions: Telehealth use was limited among FPs. Many of the barriers to using telehealth services cited by FPs are amenable to policy modification., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared., (© Copyright 2017 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

The Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education (THCGME) program is a decentralized residency training component of the Affordable Care Act, created to combat critical shortages and maldistribution of primary care physicians. The Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education and federal data reveal that the THCGME program accounted for 33% of the net increase in family medicine residency positions between 2011 and 2015. However, amid concerns about the program's stability, the contribution of the THCGME program to the net increase fell to 7% after 2015., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared., (© Copyright 2017 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Despite rapid advancements in telehealth services, only 15% of family physicians in a 2014 survey reported using telehealth; use varied widely according to the physician's practice setting or designation. Users were significantly more likely than nonusers to work in federally designated "safety net" clinics and health maintenance organizations (HMOs) but not more likely than nonusers to report working in a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) or accountable care organization., (© Copyright 2016 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Policymakers are increasingly interested in addressing the US primary care physician shortage and achieving measurable accountability for the products of the nation's $15 billion investment in graduate medical education (GME). Using one such measure, we found that sponsoring institutions (SIs) with ≤5 residency programs produce a higher percentage of general internists and family physicians than larger SIs., (© Copyright 2016 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Primary care workforce shortages are thought to result not only from lower remuneration than other specialties but also from increasing amounts of debt at graduation. A census of 3083 graduating family medicine residents found that 58% reported having >$150,000 in educational debt and 26% reported having >$250,000-levels that may deter students' interest in primary care and constrain the practice location choices of those who do choose primary care., (© Copyright 2016 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Family physicians are increasingly incorporating other health care providers into their practice teams to better meet the needs of increasingly complex and comorbid patients. While a majority of family physicians report working with a nurse practitioner, only 21% work with a behavioral health specialist. A better understanding of optimal team composition and function in primary care is essential to realizing the promise of a patient-centered medical home and achieving the triple aim., (© Copyright 2016 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background and Objectives: The Affordable Care Act has spurred significant change in the US health care system, including expansion of Medicaid and private insurance coverage to millions of Americans. As a result, the need for the medical education continuum to produce a family physician workforce that is sizable enough and highly skilled is significant. These two interdependent goals have emerged as top priorities for Family Medicine for America's Health, a new, 5-year, $21 million collaborative strategic effort of the eight US family medicine organizations to lead continued change in the US health care system. To achieve these important goals, reforms are needed across the entire educational continuum, including how we recruit, train, and help practicing family physicians refresh their skills. Such reforms must provide opportunities to acquire skills needed in new practice and payment environments, to incorporate new educational standards that reflect the public's expectations of family physicians, to collaborate with our primary care colleagues to develop effective interprofessional training, and to design educational programs that are socially accountable to the patients, families, and communities we serve. Through Family Medicine for America's Health, the discipline is well positioned to emerge as a leader in primary care workforce development and educational quality.

Purpose: To examine the perceived likelihood of sustaining new residency positions funded by five-year (2010-2015) Primary Care Residency Expansion (PCRE) grants from the Health Resources and Services Administration, which aimed to increase training output to address primary care workforce issues., Method: During September-December 2013, the authors administered an online or telephone survey to program directors whose residency programs received PCRE grants. The main outcome measure was perceived likelihood of sustaining the expanded residency positions beyond the expiration of the grant, in the outlying years of 2016 and 2017 (when the positions will be partially supported) and after 2017 (when the positions will be unsupported)., Results: Of 78 eligible program directors, 62 responded (response rate = 79.5%). Twenty-eight (45.1%; 95% CI 32.9%-57.9%) reported that their programs were unlikely to, very unlikely to, or not planning to continue the expanded positions after the PCRE grant expires. Overall, 14 (22.5%) reported having secured full funding to support the expanded positions beyond 2017. Family medicine and pediatrics program directors were significantly less likely than internal medicine program directors to report having secured funding for the outlying years (P = .02)., Conclusions: This study suggests that an approach to primary care residency training expansion that relies on time-limited grants is unlikely to produce sustainable growth of the primary care pipeline. Policy makers should instead implement systemic reform of graduate medical education (GME) financing and designate reliable sources of funding, such as Medicare and Medicaid GME funds, for new primary care residency positions.

Background and Objectives: Mission statements of medical schools vary considerably. These statements reflect institutional values and may also be reflected in the outputs of their institutions. The authors explored the relationship between US medical school mission statement content and outcomes in terms of graduate location and specialty choices., Methods: A panel of stakeholders (medical school deans, faculty, medical students, and administrators) completed a Web-based instrument to create a linear scale of social mission content (SMC scale), scoring the degree to which medical school mission statements reflect the social mission of medical education to address inequities. The SMC scale and targeted medical school outputs were analyzed via OLS regression, controlling for allopathic/osteopathic and public/private school designation. The medical school outputs of interest included percent physician output in primary care specialties (family medicine, pediatrics, and general internal medicine), as well as percent physician output in designated Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSA) and Medically Underserved Areas/Populations (MUA/P)., Results: SMC scale was a statistically significant, positive predictor of the percent of physician graduates entering primary care (?=2.526, P=.001). When examining the specialties within primary care, the SMC scale only significantly predicted percent of graduating physicians entering family medicine (?=1.936, P=.003). SMC scale was also a statistically significant predictor of several measures of physician output to work in underserved areas and populations, the strongest of which was the percent of graduating physicians working in MUA/Ps (?=4.256, P?.01)., Conclusions: Mission statements that are diligently utilized by leaders in medical education may produce a higher degree of alignment between institutional structure, ideology, and workforce outcomes.

Importance: Graduate medical education training may imprint young physicians with skills and experiences, but few studies have evaluated imprinting on physician spending patterns., Objective: To examine the relationship between spending patterns in the region of a physician's graduate medical education training and subsequent mean Medicare spending per beneficiary., Design, Setting, and Participants: Secondary multilevel multivariable analysis of 2011 Medicare claims data (Part A hospital and Part B physician) for a random, nationally representative sample of family medicine and internal medicine physicians completing residency between 1992 and 2010 with Medicare patient panels of 40 or more patients (2851 physicians providing care to 491,948 Medicare beneficiaries)., Exposures: Locations of practice and residency training were matched with Dartmouth Atlas Hospital Referral Region (HRR) files. Training and practice HRRs were categorized into low-, average-, and high-spending groups, with approximately equal distribution of beneficiary numbers. There were 674 physicians in low-spending training and low-spending practice HRRs, 180 in average-spending training/low-spending practice, 178 in high-spending training/low-spending practice, 253 in low-spending training/average-spending practice, 417 in average-spending training/average-spending practice, 210 in high-spending training/average-spending practice, 97 in low-spending training/high-spending practice, 275 in average-spending training/high-spending practice, and 567 in high-spending training/high-spending practice., Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean physician spending per Medicare beneficiary., Results: For physicians practicing in high-spending regions, those trained in high-spending regions had a mean spending per beneficiary per year $1926 higher (95% CI, $889-$2963) than those trained in low-spending regions. For practice in average-spending HRRs, mean spending was $897 higher (95% CI, $71-$1723) for physicians trained in high- vs low-spending regions. For practice in low-spending HRRs, the difference across training HRR levels was not significant ($533; 95% CI, -$46 to $1112). After controlling for patient, community, and physician characteristics, there was a 7% difference (95% CI, 2%-12%) in patient expenditures between low- and high-spending training HRRs. Across all practice HRRs, this corresponded to an estimated $522 difference (95% CI, $146-$919) between low- and high-spending training regions. For physicians 1 to 7 years in practice, there was a 29% difference ($2434; 95% CI, $1004-$4111) in spending between those trained in low- and high-spending regions; however, after 16 to 19 years, there was no significant difference., Conclusions and Relevance: Among general internists and family physicians who completed residency training between 1992 and 2010, the spending patterns in the HRR in which their residency program was located were associated with expenditures for subsequent care they provided as practicing physicians for Medicare beneficiaries. Interventions during residency training may have the potential to help control future health care spending.

Background and Objectives: No studies have examined how established global health (GH) programs have achieved sustainability. The objective of this study was to describe the financial status of GH programs., Methods: In this cross-sectional survey of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine's Group on Global Health, we assessed each program's affiliation, years of GH activities, whether or not participation was formalized, time spent on GH, funding, and anticipated funding., Results: We received 31 responses (30% response rate); 55% were affiliated with residencies, 29% were affiliated with medical schools, 16% were affiliated with both, and 68% had formalized programs. Respondents spent 19% full-time equivalent (FTE) on GH and used a mean of 3.3 funding sources to support GH. Given a mean budget of $28,756, parent institutions provided 50% while 15% was from personal funds. Twenty-six percent thought their funding would increase in the next 2 years. Compared to residencies, medical school respondents devoted more time (26% FTE versus 13% FTE), used more funding categories (4.7 versus 2.2), and anticipated funding increases (42.8% versus 12.0%). Compared to younger programs (? 5 years), respondents from older programs (> 5 years) devoted more time (25% FTE versus 16% FTE) and used more funding categories (3.8 versus 2.9). Compared to those lacking formal programs, respondents from formalized programs were less likely to use personal funds (19% versus 60%)., Conclusions: This limited descriptive study offers insight into the financial status of GH programs. Despite institutional support, respondents relied on personal funds and were pessimistic about future funding.

The U.S. physician workforce is struggling to keep pace with the demand for health care services, a situation that may worsen without efforts to enhance team-based care. More than half of family physicians work with nurse practitioners, physician assistants, or certified nurse midwives, and doing so helps ensure access to health care services, particularly in rural areas.

Background and Objectives: Global health tracks (GHTs) improve knowledge and skills, but their impact on career plans is unclear. The objective of this analysis was to determine whether GHT participants are more likely to practice in underserved areas than nonparticipants., Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, using the 2009 American Medical Association Masterfile, we assessed the practice location of the 480 graduates from 1980--2008 of two family medicine residencies-Residency 1 and Residency 2. The outcomes of interest were the percentage of graduates in health professional shortage areas (HPSAs), medically underserved areas (MUAs), rural areas, areas of dense poverty, or any area of underservice., Results: Thirty-seven percent of Residency 1 participants and 20% of nonparticipants practiced in HPSAs; 69% of Residency 2 participants and 55.5% of nonparticipants practiced in areas of dense poverty. All other combined and within-residency differences were not statistically significant., Conclusions: These findings neither confirm nor refute the results of prior surveys suggesting that global health training is associated with increased interest in underserved care. Studies involving more GHTs and complimentary methods are needed to more precisely elucidate the impact of this training.

Background: Regional medical campuses (RMCs) are geographically separate from parent campuses, have administrative ties to deans' offices, and offer at least 4 third-year clerkships. This study sought to describe the match rates into family medicine for graduates of RMCs and non-RMCs., Methods: The authors obtained the 2007 to 2009 match lists from schools participating in the Association of American Medical College's Group on Regional Medical Campuses. RMC match numbers for family medicine were subtracted from the total number of family medicine matched US seniors as published by the National Residency Match Program. The outcome of interest was the relative frequencies of RMC and non-RMC graduates matching into family medicine., Results: Between 2007 and 2009, 261 graduates from 29 RMCs accounted for 8% of all family medicine matches. During the study period, the match rate into family medicine for RMC graduates was 80% higher than that of non-RMC graduates (14.2% vs 7.9% for all 3 years). In 2009, only 3 of the RMCs had family medicine match rates lower than that of non-RMCs (7.5%)., Conclusions: The RMC match rate into family medicine was nearly twice that of non-RMCs. RMCs may play a role in addressing physician workforce imbalances.

Purpose: Comprehensive medical school rural programs (RPs) have made demonstrable contributions to the rural physician workforce, but their relative impact is uncertain. This study compares rural primary care practice outcomes for RP graduates within relevant states with those of international medical graduates (IMGs), also seen as ameliorating rural physician shortages., Method: Using data from the 2010 American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, the authors identified all 1,757 graduates from three RPs (Jefferson Medical College's Physician Shortage Area Program; University of Minnesota Medical School Duluth; University of Illinois College of Medicine at Rockford's Rural Medical Education Program) practicing in their respective states, and all 6,474 IMGs practicing in the same states and graduating the same years. The relative likelihoods of RP graduates versus IMGs practicing rural family medicine and rural primary care were compared., Results: RP graduates were 10 times more likely to practice rural family medicine than IMGs (relative risk [RR] = 10.0, confidence interval [CI] 8.7-11.6, P < .001) and almost 4 times as likely to practice any rural primary care specialty (RR 3.8, CI 3.5-4.2, P < .001). Overall, RPs produced more rural family physicians than the IMG cohort (376 versus 254)., Conclusions: Despite their relatively small size, RPs had a significant impact on rural family physician and primary care supply compared with the much larger cohort of IMGs. Wider adoption of the RP model would substantially increase access to care in rural areas compared with increasing reliance on IMGs or unfocused expansion of traditional medical schools.

The Office of the National Coordinator and recent federal policy have dramatically expanded incentives for adoption and "meaningful use" of electronic health records (EHRs). However, little reliable information regarding adoption rates in primary care, and some concern exists about lagging adoption rates beyond large group practices.

Background: Changing locations disrupts the populations served by primary health care clinics, and such changes may differentially affect access to care for vulnerable populations., Methods: Online geographic information systems mapping tools were used to define how the relocation of a family medicine center impacted access to care for black and Hispanic patients with chronic disease., Results: Maps created from practice management data revealed a distinct shift in black and Hispanic patients with chronic disease being served in the new location., Conclusions: Geographic information systems tools are valuable aids in defining changing service areas of primary health care clinics.

Background: The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) has contributed to modest improvements in chronic illness care in the UK. US policymakers have proposed similar pay-for-performance (P4P) approaches to improve care. Since previous studies have not compared chronic illness care quality in US and UK primary care practices prior to the QOF, the relative preparedness of practices to respond to P4P incentives is unknown., Objective: To compare US and UK practices on P4P measures prior to program implementation., Methods: We analysed medical record data collected before QOF implementation from randomly selected patients with diabetes or coronary artery disease (CAD) in 42 UK and 55 US family medicine practices. We compared care processes and intermediate outcomes using hierarchical logistic regression., Results: While we found gaps in chronic illness care quality across both samples, variation was lower in UK practices. UK patients were more likely to receive recommended care processes for diabetes [odds ratio (OR), 8.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 4.26-18.74] and CAD (OR, 9.18; 95% CI, 5.22-16.17) but less likely to achieve intermediate diabetes outcome targets (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.39-0.64)., Conclusions: Following National Health Service (NHS) investment in primary care preparedness, but prior to the QOF, UK practices provided more standardized care but did not achieve better intermediate outcomes than a sample of typical US practices. US policymakers should focus on reducing variation in care documentation to ensure the effectiveness of P4P efforts while the NHS should focus on moving from process documentation to better patient outcomes.

Geographic information systems (GIS) are powerful tools for managing, analysing and mapping geographical and associated data. In the health care setting, GIS can be used to map and graph health care provider and social and environmental data. This article uses two hypothetical cases to explore applications of GIS in general practice.

Medical students and residents have shown increasing interest in international health experiences. Before attempting to establish a global health training program in a family medicine residency, program faculty must consider the goals of the international program, whether there are champions to support the program, the resources available, and the specific type of program that best fits with the residency. The program itself should include didactics, peer education, experiential learning in international and domestic settings, and methods for preparing learners and evaluating program outcomes. Several hurdles can be anticipated in developing global health programs, including finances, meeting curricular and supervision requirements, and issues related to employment law, liability, and sustainability.

Purpose: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's 2003 restrictions on resident duty hours (RDH) raised concerns among educators about potential negative impacts on residents' training. In the early wake of these restrictions, little is known about how RDH reform impacts training in primary care. The authors surveyed family medicine (FM) residency program directors (PDs) for their perceptions of the impact of RDH regulations on training in primary care., Method: All PDs of 472 FM residency programs were asked via list-serve to complete an anonymous Internet-based survey in the fall of 2004. The survey solicited PDs' opinions about changes in staff and in residents' training experiences with respect to implementation of RDH regulations. Descriptive and qualitative analyses were conducted., Results: There were 369 partial and 328 complete responses, for a response rate of 69% (328/472). Effects of the RDH regulations are varied. Fifty percent of FMPDs report increased patient-care duties for attendings, whereas 42% report no increase. Nearly 80% of programs hired no additional staff. Sixty percent of programs eliminated postcall clinics, and nearly 40% implemented a night-float system. Administrative hassles and losses of professionalism, educational opportunity, and continuity of care were common concerns, but a sizeable minority feel that residents will be better off under the new regulations., Conclusions: Many FMPDs cited increased faculty burden and the risk of lower-quality educational experiences for their trainees. Innovations for increasing the effectiveness of teaching may ultimately compensate for lost educational time. If not, alternatives such as extending the length of residency must be considered.

PURPOSE COVID-19 is a condition that can lead to other chronic conditions. These conditions are frequently diagnosed in the primary care setting. We used a novel primary care registry to quantify the burden of post-COVID conditions among adult patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis across the United States. METHODS We used the American Family Cohort, a national primary care registry, to identify study patients. After propensity score matching, we assessed the prevalence of 17 condition categories individually and cumulatively, comparing patients having COVID-19 in 2020-2021 with (1) historical control patients having influenza-like illness in 2018 and (2) contemporaneous control patients seen for wellness or preventive visits in 2020-2021. RESULTS We identified 28,215 patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis and 235,953 historical control patients with influenza-like illness. The COVID-19 group had higher prevalences of breathing difficulties (4.2% vs 1.9%), type 2 diabetes (12.0% vs 10.2%), fatigue (3.9% vs 2.2%), and sleep disturbances (3.5% vs 2.4%). There were no differences, however, in the postdiagnosis monthly trend in cumulative morbidity between the COVID-19 patients (trend = 0.026; 95% CI, 0.025-0.027) and the patients with influenza-like illness (trend = 0.026; 95% CI, 0.023-0.027). Relative to contemporaneous wellness control patients, COVID-19 patients had higher prevalences of breathing difficulties and type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS Our findings show a moderate burden of post-COVID conditions in primary care, including breathing difficulties, fatigue, and sleep disturbances. Based on clinical registry data, the prevalence of post-COVID conditions in primary care practices is lower than that reported in subspecialty and hospital settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]