Creating a Centralized Infrastructure to Facilitate Medical Education Research

Background and Objectives: The program director (PD) position is challenging. PDs are faced with many competing priorities and risk of burnout. Short PD tenure may contribute to training program challenges. The tenure of family medicine residency directors has not been rigorously studied. Our objective was to study family medicine program director tenure and change in tenure over time, and compare these to available Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) data. Methods: We analyzed the 11 Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance PD surveys from 2011 through 2017. We calculated mean and median responses to the question “How long have you been program director at your current program?” We compared these results to data from the ACGME Data Resource Book for all specialty programs. Results: Of 2,577 responses in 11 PD surveys over 7 years, mean family medicine PD tenure was 6.5 years and median tenure was 4.5 years. Tenure did not change significantly from 2011-2017, and 30.5% of PDs have been in their position 0, 1, or 2 years. The right skew in our data (ie, median substantially less than mean), is similar to that seen in other specialties. Conclusions: Mean family medicine PD tenure is 6.5 years and median tenure is 4.5 years. The short tenure and large number of new PDs annually may impact program quality and suggests more resources and support may be needed for PDs new in their position.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Family Medicine Program Director Tenure: 2011 Through 2017

Brown

Gerkin

2019

“…The questions were part of a larger omnibus survey conducted annually by the Council of Academic Family Medicine (CAFM) Educational Research Alliance (CERA). 15 The CERA steering committee evaluated questions for consistency with the overall aim of the omnibus survey, readability, and existing evidence of reliability and validity. Pilot testing was done with family medicine educators who were not part of the target population.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Much Do Family Medicine Residency Programs Spend on Resident Recruitment? A CERA Study

Nilsen

Callaway

Phillips

et al. 2019

Background and Objectives: Resident recruitment is one of the most important responsibilities of residency programs. Resource demands are among the principal reasons for calls for recruitment reform. The purpose of this study was to provide a national snapshot of estimated costs of recruitment among US family medicine programs. The aim was to provide data to assist programs in securing and allocating resources to manage the increasingly challenging recruitment process. Methods: Questions were part of a larger omnibus survey conducted by the Council of Academic Family Medicine (CAFM) Educational Research Alliance (CERA). Specific questions were asked regarding how many interviews each program offered and completed; interview budget; additional funds spent on recruitment; reimbursements; and resident, faculty, and staff hours used per interviewee. Results: The response rate was 53% (277/522). Program directors estimated that residents devoted 6.4 hours (95% CI 6, 7) to each interview, faculty 5.6 hours (95% CI 5, 6), and staff 4.4 hours (95% CI 4, 5). The average budget for interviewing per program was $17,079 (±$19,474) with an additional $8,274 (±$9,615) spent on recruitment activities. The average amount spent per applicant was $213 (±$360), with $111 (±$237) in additional funds used for recruitment. Programs were more likely to pay for interviewee meals (82%) and lodging (59%) than travel (3%). Conclusions: As individual programs face increasing pressure to demonstrate value for investment in recruiting, data generated by this national survey enables useful comparison to individual programs and sponsoring organizations. Results may also contribute to national discussions about best practices in resident recruitment and ways to improve efficiency of the process.

“…The methods of CERA survey design and implementation have been described previously. 11 The American Academy of Family Physicians Institutional Review Board approved this project in December 2015.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forward Feeding in Graduate Medical Education: Results of a National Survey

DeCastro

Mims

Stephens

et al. 2019

Self Cite

Background and Objectives: “Forward feeding” is defined as the sharing of information regarding learner behaviors and performance outside of formal institutional committee structures. The purpose of this study was to establish baseline opinions and policies of forward feeding in family medicine residency programs. Methods: Data for this study were obtained as part of the 2015 CERA Program Directors Fall Survey. Program directors indicated whether they felt that faculty should and do engage in forward feeding. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of various types of information about learners (academic performance, clinical performance, professionalism, physical health, and mental health), reasons for promoting, and concerns regarding forward feeding on a 5-point Likert scale. Results: The overall response rate was 49% (227/461). Most agreed that faculty should (87%) and do (83%) engage in forward feeding. Concerns regarding professionalism and clinical performance were reported as most important to share. The most important reason identified for forward feeding was the early identification of struggling residents, followed by the ability to direct teaching to the resident’s specific needs, and improving the quality of feedback. Fear of creating bias was the most commonly cited concern for engaging in forward feeding, followed by fear of violating confidentiality and difficulty maintaining confidentiality. Fear of litigation was the least common concern. Conclusions: Despite concerns, the majority of program directors feel that faculty should and do engage in forward feeding. Our study confirms the importance of clinical performance and professionalism as two important themes of information shared by attendings about residents.