Alignment of Preventive Medicine Physicians' Residency Training With Professional Needs

A Qualitative Analysis of Assessment and Evaluation Practices Within the Individualized Curriculum

OBJECTIVE

The Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education requires an "individualized curriculum" (IC) in pediatric residency. A shared understanding across programs of methods to evaluate the IC is lacking. We explored pediatric program leaders' perceptions of assessment and evaluation within the IC to further understand and inform most useful practices.

METHODS

We conducted a phenomenology study using semi-structured interviews to 1) determine what IC assessment and evaluation strategies are utilized in pediatric residency programs, and 2) explore program leaders' perceptions of the feasibility and value of assessment and evaluation in the IC. We recruited a purposive sample of leaders from 15 pediatric residency programs of various sizes and regions. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data were analyzed to produce themes.

RESULTS

Three themes arose from our analysis: 1) Systematic assessment of the IC, though desired, is not robust in pediatric residency training; 2) Program differences present unique barriers and facilitators that impact the feasibility of assessment within the IC; and 3) Meaningfulness of assessment in the IC varies by stakeholder. Themes reflected perspectives on individual learner assessment and program evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

While systematic assessment and evaluation of the IC in pediatric residency training is lacking, program leaders desire feasible strategies that are meaningful to the resident, the program, and its leadership team. Leveraging current assessment and evaluation tools and aligning new assessment strategies could promote the integration of IC assessment with other assessments, minimizing burden. More structured IC assessment and evaluation could inform how to best achieve curricular goals of the IC.

Public Health and General Preventive Medicine Training: A National Survey

•

Public Health/General Preventive Medicine is a diverse specialty with multiple career pathways.

•

Preventive Medicine trainees are also diverse in their backgrounds.

•

Clinical preventive medicine remains the top area of interest.

•

Academia was the most common career goal for residents and graduates.

•

Some Preventive Medicine trainees report difficulty in marketing themselves post-graduation.

Little is known about the current experiences of Public Health/General Preventive Medicine (PH/GPM) residents and graduates in the United States. This cross-sectional study of PH/GPM residents and graduates examined their knowledge of the field and career choices after graduation. We developed a questionnaire to address medical education, graduate medical training prior to Preventive Medicine (PM), current PM training, and post-graduation goals. Data was stratified by residency status (resident vs graduate), and board-eligibility (dual-eligible vs solely PH/GPM). Bivariate analysis of quantitative data was performed using Fisher’s test. Qualitative data were organized into themes and analyzed quantitatively. Of those invited to participate, a total of 153 (18.25%) PH/GPM residents and graduates responded to the survey. We found diversity in prior medical education/training among respondents. Overall, debt burden at the start of training was low compared to national trends. Compared to residents, a higher proportion of graduates were board-eligible in another specialty (p<0.001). Most respondents felt that their programs provided them with opportunities to acquire skills essential for a career in PM. Ninety-one percent of graduates were board-certified in PH/GPM. Respondents expressed a wide range of career interests, including government work and academia. Difficulty with marketing themselves as PM physicians was frequently cited as a reason for the difficulty in securing a PM job. The results inform the PM community with current trends in PH/GPM training and career obstacles faced by PM graduates.

Preventive Medicine Physicians' Role in Health Care Organizations' Pursuit of the Triple Aim

CONTEXT

The Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Triple Aim is rooted in improving population health and therefore requires a focus on prevention as well as management of disease. Preventive medicine (PM) physicians are uniquely trained in clinical medicine as well as health care delivery and systems-based practice, thus potentially positioning them to lead population health and contribute to the Triple Aim.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study were to (1) describe PM physicians' contributions related to the Triple Aim and (2) describe PM physician satisfaction with these activities.

DESIGN

A survey was administered to physicians graduating from a single Preventive Medicine Residency program between 1975 and 2015. Physicians were asked about work in 3 specific emerging areas that relate to the Triple Aim's focus on population health improvement: population health; health system transformation; and integration between primary care and public health. PM physicians were also asked about their job, career, and specialty satisfaction.

RESULTS

Most respondents (74%) practiced population health, with the majority (63%) defining this as improving the health of the population at large versus for a defined clinical population (37%). Approximately half (59%) of PM physicians are involved in health system transformation leadership. Most respondents practice both public health and primary care, but only 32% report having had positions that involve integration of these activities. PM physicians reported high specialty satisfaction levels, particularly among those involved in population health and health care transformation.

CONCLUSION

PM physicians already make substantial contributions to population health and lead work related to the Triple Aim. High satisfaction among PM physicians suggests that they can contribute to a stable and sustainable population health workforce.

Preventive medicine's equivalence problem

The structure of preventive medicine residency training in the U.S. warrants serious examination. U.S. public health and general preventive medicine residencies have suffered a 17% decline in the number of residency programs since 2000, and current residency programs are, on average, half-empty. The required clinical year is not unique to preventive medicine, a basic, undifferentiated MPH for preventive medicine doesn't distinguish the preventive medicine specialist, and practicum year requirements are overly broad and not necessarily specific to the specialty, leaving the specialty vulnerable to equivalence by most other specialties. Strategies including creation of an additional preventive medicine-specific clinical year, developing a new public health degree for the specialty, and more specific practicum rotations, as well as potentially changing the specialty's name and altering the annual structure of training, are proposed along with an equivalence test.