Background and Objectives: Family medicine faculty face increasing expectations for clinical productivity. These expectations impinge on academic and education time and make it difficult to pursue research or scholarly activities. A task force convened by the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine created national guidelines to protect nonclinical time for family medicine faculty. Methods: The task force reviewed existing guidelines for protected time, as well as data on current and past distribution of time for faculty in academic medicine, including a specific look at family medicine. Based on the evidence and expert opinion from task force members and leaders of family medicine organizations, the task force developed eight consensus recommendations. Results: The guidelines include recommendations for allocation of protected time for program directors, associate program directors, and core faculty. These represent best practices to ensure programs have appropriate time to devote to the nonclinical duties of training and educating residents, while also promoting innovation in education, faculty well-being, and faculty retention. discussion: Faculty require nonclinical time for resident development, curriculum creation and maintenance, program assessment, and scholarship. Without these functions, programs can’t meet accreditation requirements or fulfill their responsibility to develop strong family physicians. Residency programs, sponsoring institutions, universities, health care systems, and accrediting bodies should use these recommendations to develop budgets that provide appropriate time allocation to enhance faculty wellness, reduce turnover, and meet organizational missions and objectives around education and providing care for communities.
Background and Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic obliged the field of graduate medical education to pivot from in-person to virtual residency interviews in 2020. The decreased travel and financial barriers of this format could potentially lead to greater diversity and equity in the primary care workforce. We aimed to evaluate changes in applicant pools from in-person to virtual interviewing cycles. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of Electronic Residency Application Services (ERAS) from five US family medicine residencies across five interview cycles (three in-person and two virtual; 2017/2018 through 2021/2022). We compared geographic and demographic data about applicants as well as administrative program data. Results: The study included 25,271 applicants. The average distance between applicants and programs was 768 miles during in-person interview years and 772 miles during virtual interview years (P=.27). Applicants who interviewed with programs were 446 and 459 miles away, respectively (P=.06). During in-person application years, applicants with backgrounds historically underrepresented in medicine (URM) submitted an average of 21% of applications; this increased approximately 1% during virtual interviewing years (OR, 1.08; P=.03). There were no other differences between in-person and virtual application years in rates of URM applicants. Residency programs received more applications from US medical schools (OR, 1.46; P<.0001) and were more likely to interview a US medical school applicant (OR, 2.26; P<.0001) in virtual years. Program fill rates appeared to be lower during virtual years. Conclusions: The virtual interviewing format did not appear to substantially increase the geographic, racial, or ethnic diversity of applicants, and was associated with increased applications from US medical schools.
Introduction: Recent changes to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements eliminated minimum standards for protected nonclinical time for core faculty. Faculty perform many nonclinical tasks to maintain family medicine residencies. The objective of this study is to describe the landscape of nonclinical time for family medicine residency faculty. Methods: Program directors at ACGME-accredited family medicine residencies were electronically surveyed in August 2019 to describe nonclinical time of their faculty. Survey information requested included program demographics, the amount of nonclinical time allocated, and the estimated amount of nonclinical time spent per year completing their faculty duties. Results: A total 156 of 635 program directors (24.6%) returned the survey and 58 (9.1%) completed the entire survey for analysis inclusion. An average of 3,394 hours per year, per program were estimated to be spent on nonclinical activities. The greatest amount of time was spent on program administration (39%) and the least amount of time on curriculum development (5%). There was variation in the use of nonphysician faculty to complete these tasks. Allocated faculty time was comparable to estimated time spent performing nonclinical tasks. On average, a 24-resident program devoted 1.9 full-time equivalent faculty salary support to complete nonclinical activities. Conclusions: Family medicine residency faculty spend significant time completing nonclinical tasks required to meet ACGME requirements and need the protected time to complete these necessary tasks. Direct data on the use of faculty nonclinical time is needed to more accurately define its use.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.