Career differences between primary care and traditional trainees in internal medicine and pediatrics

A National Survey of Internal Medicine Primary Care Residency Program Directors

BACKGROUND

The United States is facing a primary care physician shortage. Internal medicine (IM) primary care residency programs have expanded substantially in the past several decades, but there is a paucity of literature on their characteristics and graduate outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to characterize the current US IM primary care residency landscape, assess graduate outcomes, and identify unique programmatic or curricular factors that may be associated with a high proportion of graduates pursuing primary care careers.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study PARTICIPANTS: Seventy out of 100 (70%) IM primary care program directors completed the survey.

MAIN MEASURES

Descriptive analyses of program characteristics, educational curricula, clinical training experiences, and graduate outcomes were performed. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine the association between ≥ 50% of graduates in 2016 and 2017 entering a primary care career and program characteristics, educational curricula, and clinical training experiences.

KEY RESULTS

Over half of IM primary care program graduates in 2016 and 2017 pursued a primary care career upon residency graduation. The majority of program, curricular, and clinical training factors assessed were not associated with programs that have a majority of their graduates pursuing a primary care career path. However, programs with a majority of program graduates entering a primary care career were less likely to have X + Y scheduling compared to the other programs.

CONCLUSIONS

IM primary care residency programs are generally succeeding in their mission in that the majority of graduates are heading into primary care careers.

Teaching health centers: a new paradigm in graduate medical education

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 created the Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education (THCGME) program to provide graduate medical education (GME) funding directly to community-based health centers that expand or establish new primary care residency programs. The THCGME program was the legislation's only new investment in GME, and it represents a significant departure from the Medicare GME funding system. It provides payments to ambulatory care centers for both direct and indirect GME expenses, and mandates a level of reporting from recipients that is not required for Medicare GME support. This initial look at the 11 inaugural teaching health centers (THCs) shows that they are training primary care residents in relevant delivery models (e.g., interprofessional teams, patient-centered medical homes), developing educational initiatives that address primary care practice in underserved areas, and transforming organizational and funding structures to support community-based training. The THCs plan to evaluate and report resident performance, patient quality of care, and graduate outcomes. The work of the first THCs has implications for primary care training, the GME system, and future policies and legislation aimed at strengthening the health care workforce.

A legislative history of federal assistance for health professions training in primary care medicine and dentistry in the United States, 1963-2008

This article reviews the legislative history of Title VII of the United States Public Health Service Act. It describes three periods of federal support for health professions training in medicine and dentistry. During the first era, 1963 to 1975, federal support led to an increase in the overall production of physicians and dentists, primarily through grants for construction, renovation, and expansion of schools. The second period, 1976 to 1991, witnessed a shift in federal support to train physicians, dentists, and physician assistants in the fields of primary care defined as family medicine, general internal medicine, and general pediatrics. During this era, divisions of general internal medicine and general pediatrics, and departments of family medicine, were established in nearly every medical and osteopathic medical school. All three disciplines conducted primary care residencies, medical student clerkships, and faculty development programs. The third period, 1992 to present, emphasized the policy goals of caring for vulnerable populations, greater diversity in the health professions, and curricula innovations to prepare trainees for the future practice of medicine and dentistry. Again, Title VII grantees met these policy goals by designing curricula and creating clinical experiences to teach care of the homeless, persons with HIV, the elderly, and other vulnerable populations. Many grantees recruited underrepresented minorities into their programs as trainees and as faculty, and all of them designed and implemented new curricula to address emerging health priorities.This article is part of a theme issue of Academic Medicine on the Title VII health professions training programs.

Variation in predictors of primary care career choice by year and stage of training

CONTEXT

It is not known whether factors associated with primary care career choice affect trainees differently at different times or stages of medical education.

OBJECTIVE

To examine how role models, encouragement, and personal characteristics affect career choice at different stages (medical school vs residency) and periods (1994 vs 1997) of training.

DESIGN

A split-panel design with 2 cross-sectional telephone surveys and a panel survey in 1994 and 1997.

PARTICIPANTS

A national probability sample of fourth-year students (307 in 1994, 219 in 1997), 645 second-year residents in 1994, and 494 third-year residents in 1997. Of the fourth-year students interviewed in 1994, 241 (78.5%) were re-interviewed as third-year residents in 1997.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Primary care (general internal medicine, general pediatrics, or family medicine) career choice.

RESULTS

Having a primary care role model was a stronger predictor of primary care career choice for residents (odds ratio [OR], 18.0; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 11.2 to 28.8 in 1994; OR, 43.7; 95% CI, 24.4 to 78.3 in 1997) than for students (OR, 6.5; 95% CI, 4.3 to 10.2; no variation by year). Likewise, peer encouragement was more predictive for residents (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 3.3 to 8.9 in 1994; OR, 16.6; 95% CI; 9.7 to 28.4 in 1997) than for students (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.2; no variation by year). Orientation to the emotional aspects of care was consistently associated with primary care career choice across stages and years of training.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of peer encouragement and role models on career choice differed for students and residents and, in the case of residents, by year of training, suggesting that interventions to increase the primary care workforce should be tailored to stage of training.

The reported value of rural internal medicine residency electives and factors that influence rural career choice

This study examines how rural electives affect medical residents' opinions about rural practice and which factors encourage or discourage choice of rural practice. Participants in a one- to two-month rural elective and a matched group of randomly selected nonparticipants were surveyed. Seventy percent of the elective participants (n = 58) and 61% of the matched nonparticipants (n = 51) completed the questionnaire. The groups' responses to scaled response measures and open-ended questions were analyzed using t , chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. A majority of participants stated that the elective was a beneficial experience (n = 36), and participants' interest in rural practice increased significantly after the elective. Elective participants were more likely than nonparticipants to see breadth of practice, continuity of care, quality of life in rural areas, and experiences with mentors as encouraging rural practice. Elective participation did not demonstrably increase rural career choice, although this finding may be attributable to small sample size. Respondents identified means to encourage rural practice, as well as barriers to rural practice: Elective participants suggested that electives may be more effective if they occurred earlier in medical training, lasted for longer periods of time, and addressed the needs of spouses or partners. Generalizability is limited by several factors, including small sample size and the possibility of pre-existing differences between elective participants and nonparticipants.

Medical schools, affirmative action, and the neglected role of social class

Medical schools' affirmative action policies traditionally focus on race and give relatively little consideration to applicants' socioeconomic status or "social class." However, recent challenges to affirmative action have raised the prospect of using social class, instead of race, as the basis for preferential admissions decisions in an effort to maintain or increase student diversity. This article reviews the evidence for class-based affirmative action in medicine and concludes that it might be an effective supplement to, rather than a replacement for, race-based affirmative action. The authors consider the research literature on (1) medical students' socioeconomic background, (2) the impact of social class on medical treatment and physician-patient communication, and (3) correlations between physicians' socioeconomic origins and their service patterns to the disadvantaged. They also reference sociological literature on distinctions between race and class and Americans' discomfort with "social class."

Contributions of general internal medicine teaching units: a national survey

OBJECTIVE

To identify and describe general internal medicine teaching units and their educational activities.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional mailed survey of heads of general internal medicine teaching units affiliated with U.S. internal medicine training programs who responded between December 1996 and December 1997.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Responses were received from 249 (61%) of 409 eligible programs. Responding and nonresponding programs were similar in terms of university affiliation, geographic region, and size of residency program. Fifty percent of faculty received no funding from teaching units, 37% received full-time (50% or more time), and 13% received part-time (under 50% time) funding from units. Only 23% of faculty were primarily located at universities or medical schools. The majority of faculty were classified as clinicians (15% or less time spent in teaching) or clinician-educators (more than 15% time spent in teaching), and few were clinician-researchers (30% or more time spent in research). Thirty-six percent of faculty were internal medicine subspecialists. All units were involved in training internal medicine residents and medical students, and 21% trained fellows of various types. Half of the units had teaching clinics located in underserved areas, and one fourth had teaching clinics serving more than 50% managed care patients. Heads of teaching units reported that 54% of recent graduating residents chose careers in general internal medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

General internal medicine teaching units surveyed contributed substantial faculty effort, much of it unfunded and located off-campus, to training medical students, residents, and fellows. A majority of their graduating residents chose generalist careers.

Intention to practice primary care by pediatric residents: nature or nurture?

Factors associated with the intention to practice primary care were examined in a survey of a national sample of PL-2 residents (n = 98). Socioemotional orientation (nature), faculty and peer encouragement (nurture), and clinical experiences during residency (nurture) were independently associated with a primary care career choice. For residents who changed career intentions to primary care from a nonprimary care preference, gender, encouragement by faculty and peers, and outpatient experiences during residency were associated with the change. Encouragement by both faculty and peers had the strongest influence on primary care career choice for all residents.

Resolving the conflicts between general and subspecialty medicine: the internist as consulting physician-scientist

Internal medicine is confronting a conflict between its generalist and specialty roles, coupled with a conflict between the needs of academic internal medicine in contrast to those of private practice. The historical origins of these conflicts are explored. To resolve these conflicts, internal medicine must rediscover the common ground shared by the general internist and specialist, academician and practitioner. This common ground is best found in the role of internist as physician-scientist. In the future, specialists and general internists will need to emphasize their roles as consultants. In the process, internal medicine will become smaller and more "academic." The benefits of this role for internal medicine should be rapidly demonstrated through outcomes based research in order to win over skeptical payors, peers, and the public at large.

Resident and family continuity in pediatric continuity clinic: nine years of observation

OBJECTIVE

To assess resident, patient, and family continuity.

BACKGROUND

Continuity clinic is the principal longitudinal primary care experience for pediatric residents. Although it has been a recommendation of the Residency Review Committee for pediatric training for more than 10 years and has been a requirement of the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education since 1989, the extent to which continuity is achieved in this setting has not been reported.

METHODS

Nine years (1984-1993) of residents' continuity clinic experience in a community hospital affiliate of a university training program were reviewed. Continuity was defined by recurring visits between the same patient/provider pair. The analysis from 57 different residents includes 48 intern (R1) years, 45 level two (R2) years, and 40 level three (R3) years; 32 of these residents completed all 3 years of training (3-year cohort) in the program during the study period. Observations included 89 952 visits by 11 009 patients in 7130 families. Continuity was determined for the resident, patient, and family.

RESULTS

Residents saw an annual average of 93, 136, and 144 visits as R1s, R2s, and R3s. Residents saw 60% of their patients fewer than 3 times and nearly 40% only once. In the final year for those in the 3-year cohort, residents saw an average of 149 visits; 53% of the time these R3s had seen their patients once or twice over 3 years. Thirty percent of the patients never saw their primary care physician (PCP) and 72% of patients had fewer than 3 visits with their PCP. One quarter of the families never saw their continuity resident, and 62% saw their continuity resident fewer than 3 times.

CONCLUSIONS

These data demonstrate a remarkable lack of both resident and patient continuity in the principal clinical activity affording longitudinal primary care experiences during residency training. If more continuity is essential for both primary care of patients and education in general pediatrics, change in the structure of continuity experience is required.

A comparison of the methods and criteria used by traditional and primary care internal medicine programs to select residents

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether there are differences in the methods and criteria used by primary care and traditional internal medicine programs to select first-year residents.

DESIGN

A questionnaire was sent to primary care and traditional internal medicine program directors, who were asked to rank in importance ten documents of an applicant's file and to score the relative importance, on a scale of -5 to +5, of 21 candidate traits of four types: academic, demographic, personal, and career goal.

SETTING

Programs at institutions (n = 54) that have categorical residency programs in both traditional and primary care internal medicine.

PARTICIPANTS

Of 108 questionnaires, the overall response rate was 81%, with 40 pairs (74%) of matched respondents. Seventy-two percent of the responding institutions were university-administered.

RESULTS

Primary care and traditional programs use similar methods to process applicants, rank similarly ten documents in an applicant's file, and value academic success during the clinical years as the most important candidate trait. Compared with traditional tracks, primary care tracks place greater emphasis on a candidate's career goals and select for candidates planning to pursue primary care careers (3.9 +/- 1.4 vs 0.9 +/- 1.5, p < 0.001), enter practice (1.4 +/- 1.5 vs 0.1 +/- 1.2, p < 0.001), or serve medically indigent populations (2.7 +/- 1.5 vs 1.2 +/- 1.2, p < 0.001). Primary care programs rate negatively candidates who intend to subspecialize, whereas traditional programs view them almost neutrally (-1.8 +/- 2.2 vs 0.5 +/- 1.5, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Primary care and traditional track internal medicine programs use similar methods to select residents and both rank academic achievement during the clinical years as a candidate's most important attribute. However, only primary care programs strongly select for candidates on the basis of their career plans and in particular prefer candidates who are committed to pursuing primary care careers and serving the medically indigent.

Strengthening academic generalist departments and divisions

Academic departments of family medicine and divisions of general internal medicine and general pediatrics exist in the majority of medical schools in the United States and have important roles in generalist medical education. The major organizational issues facing these units concern institutional influence, faculty development, role in medical education, research productivity, financial stability, and clinical responsibilities. These issues must be understood in order for medical schools and teaching hospitals to achieve the societal goal of producing necessary generalist physicians.

Implementation issues in generalist education

Devising a strategy for the implementation of a generalist medical educational program can be aided by grouping the many issues to be addressed into developmental stages. In this way, problems can be anticipated and resources marshalled. Initially, leadership and institutional support for the program must be developed. Next, detailed financial, curricular, and site planning must be undertaken. Implementation of the program must contend with faculty, site, and trainee concerns while consolidating financial and institutional support. Finally, in institutionalizing the program, financing must be secured and ongoing evaluation should provide information necessary to regularly reassess the program and renew its goals.

Training generalist physicians: structural elements of the curriculum

To train more generalist physicians, structural changes must be made along the continuum of medical education. Future generalists require in-depth exposure to primary care practice, with substantive experience in the longitudinal management of patient panels and the opportunity to work with successful generalist role models. Clinical training and course work must incorporate a wide range of skills and disciplines, including areas now under-emphasized, such as epidemiology, health services, and psychosocial medicine. Recommendations for structural changes to increase the generalist focus of medical education include: 1) the development within institutions of central authorities, involving departments of internal medicine, family medicine, and pediatrics, in joint efforts to foster all aspects of generalist training, including recruitment, curriculum development, community linkages, innovative approaches to training, and recognition and support for successful generalist teachers; 2) commitment of a minimum of 50% of clinical training to ambulatory care settings at both medical school and residency levels; 3) required longitudinal care experiences for all medical students and a 20% or greater time commitment to longitudinal care for internal medicine, pediatrics, and family medicine residents; and 4) increased numbers of generalist faculty and enhanced teaching skills among faculty in the outpatient environment, to guarantee increased exposure of medical students and residents to generalist role models.

Collaboration in the preparation of the generalist physician

Collaborative efforts among health care professionals and institutions at all levels will be essential to the increased production of generalist physicians. There have been many successful collaborations in education and patient care among certifying boards, faculty, physicians in practice, specialists, generalists, and non-physician health professionals, as well as among the three generalist specialties. Recommended strategies to encourage collaboration in the preparation of generalist physicians include: creation of an institutional collaborative curriculum committee; design of a longitudinal curriculum on collaboration for physicians-in-training and other health professionals; implementation of collaborative patient care in ambulatory care teaching clinics; development of integrated systems of care that link inpatient, outpatient, and community-based health services; and education of physicians-in-training in these and other collaborative and co-practice models of patient care.