Norman B. Kahn

The Future of Family Medicine: A Collaborative Project of the Family Medicine Community

BACKGROUND Recognizing fundamental flaws in the fragmented US health care systems and the potential of an integrative, generalist approach, the leadership of 7 national family medicine organizations initiated the Future of Family Medicine (FFM) project in 2002. The goal of the project was to develop a strategy to transform and renew the discipline of family medicine to meet the needs of patients in a changing health care environment. METHODS A national research study was conducted by independent research firms. Interviews and focus groups identified key issues for diverse constituencies, including patients, payers, residents, students, family physicians, and other clinicians. Subsequently, interviews were conducted with nationally representative samples of 9 key constituencies. Based in part on these data, 5 task forces addressed key issues to meet the project goal. A Project Leadership Committee synthesized the task force reports into the report presented here. RESULTS The project identified core values, a New Model of practice, and a process for development, research, education, partnership, and change with great potential to transform the ability of family medicine to improve the health and health care of the nation. The proposed New Model of practice has the following characteristics: a patient-centered team approach; elimination of barriers to access; advanced information systems, including an electronic health record; redesigned, more functional offices; a focus on quality and outcomes; and enhanced practice finance. A unified communications strategy will be developed to promote the New Model of family medicine to multiple audiences. The study concluded that the discipline needs to oversee the training of family physicians who are committed to excellence, steeped in the core values of the discipline, competent to provide family medicine’s basket of services within the New Model, and capable of adapting to varying patient needs and changing care technologies. Family medicine education must continue to include training in maternity care, the care of hospitalized patients, community and population health, and culturally effective and proficient care. A comprehensive lifelong learning program for each family physician will support continuous personal, professional, and clinical practice assessment and improvement. Ultimately, systemwide changes will be needed to ensure high-quality health care for all Americans. Such changes include taking steps to ensure that every American has a personal medical home, promoting the use and reporting of quality measures to improve performance and service, advocating that every American have health care coverage for basic services and protection against extraordinary health care costs, advancing research that supports the clinical decision making of family physicians and other primary care clinicians, and developing reimbursement models to sustain family medicine and primary care practices. CONCLUSIONS The leadership of US family medicine organizations is committed to a transformative process. In partnership with others, this process has the potential to integrate health care to improve the health of all Americans.

Genetics in Primary Care: A USA Faculty Development Initiative

The Genetics in Primary Care (GPC) project is a USA national faculty development initiative with the goal of enhancing the training of medical students and primary care residents by developing primary care faculty expertise in genetics. Educational strategies were developed for the project by an executive committee with input from an advisory committee, comprising individuals with primary care, medical education and genetics expertise. These committees identified the key issues in genetics education for primary care as (1) considering inherited disease in the differential diagnosis of common disorders; (2) using appropriate counseling strategies for genetic testing and diagnosis, and (3) understanding the implications of a genetic diagnosis for family members. The group emphasized the importance of a primary care perspective, which suggests that the clinical utility of genetic information is greatest when it has the potential to improve health outcomes. The group also noted that clinical practice already incorporates the use of family history information, providing a basis for discussing the application of genetic concepts in primary care. Genetics and primary care experts agreed that educational efforts will be most successful if they are integrated into existing primary care teaching programs, and use a case-based teaching format that incorporates both clinical and social dimensions of genetic disorders. Three core clinical skills were identified: (1) interpreting family history; (2) recognizing the variable clinical utility of genetic information, and (3) acquiring cultural competency. Three areas of potential controversy were identified as well: (1) the role of nondirective counseling versus shared decision-making in discussions of genetic testing; (2) the intrinsic value of genetic information when it does not influence health outcomes, and (3) indications for a genetics referral. The project provides an opportunity for ongoing discussion about these important issues.

Emerging Lessons of the Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum (IGC) Project.

The Interdisciplinary Generalist Curriculum Project (IGC) was funded in 1993 by the Health Resources and Services Administration with the goal of developing innovative preclinical generalist curricula in ten of the nations medical and osteopathic schools. The IGC successfully completed two competitive cycles in which ten schools were awarded three-year contracts. Although the long-term goal of the project is to increase the proportion of medical students choosing generalist careers, much has been learned thus far about the processes of curricular change and interdisciplinary cooperation. Drawing on information from school reports, site visits, external evaluations, academic presentations, and annual project meetings, this report presents the emerging lessons learned in the key areas of interdisciplinary collaboration, recruitment and retention of community preceptors, faculty development, and integration of generalist-related components into the four-year medical school curriculum. These lessons should prove useful for other schools embarking upon significant curricular innovations.

Designing a large-scale multilevel improvement initiative: the improving performance in practice program.

Improving Performance in Practice (IPIP) is a large system intervention designed to align efforts and motivate the creation of a tiered system of improvement at the national, state, practice, and patient levels, assisting primary-care physicians and their practice teams to assess and measurably improve the quality of care for chronic illness and preventive services using a common approach across specialties. The long-term goal of IPIP is to create an ongoing, sustained system across multiple levels of the health care system to accelerate improvement. IPIP core program components include alignment of leadership and leadership accountability, promotion of partnerships to promote health care quality, development of attractive incentives and motivators, regular measurement and transparent sharing of performance data, participation in organized quality improvement efforts using a standardized model, development of enduring collaborative improvement networks, and practice-level support. A prototype of the program was tested in 2 states from March 2006 to February 2008. In 2008, IPIP began to spread to 5 additional states. IPIP uses the leadership of the medical profession to align efforts to achieve large-scale change and to catalyze the development of an infrastructure capable of testing, evaluating, and disseminating effective approaches directly into practice.

Title VII and the development and promotion of national initiatives in training primary care clinicians in the United States

The Title VII, Section 747 (Title VII) legislation, which authorizes the Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry grant program, provides statutory authority to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to award contracts and cooperative agreements aimed at enhancing the quality of primary care training in the United States.More than 35 contracts and cooperative agreements have been issued by HRSA with Title VII federal funds, most often to national organizations promoting the training of physician assistants and medical students and representing the primary care disciplines of family medicine, general internal medicine, and general pediatrics. These activities have influenced generalist medicine through three mechanisms: (1) building collaboration among the primary care disciplines and between primary care and specialty medicine, (2) strengthening primary care generally through national initiatives designed to develop and implement new models of primary care training, and (3) enhancing the quality of primary care training in specific disease areas determined to be of national importance.The most significant outcomes of the Title VII contracts awarded to national primary care organizations are increased collaboration and enhanced innovation in ambulatory training for students, residents, and faculty. Overall, generalist competencies and education in new content areas have been the distinguishing features of these initiatives. This effort has enhanced not only generalist training but also the general medical education of all students, including future specialists, because so much of the generalist competency agenda is germane to the general medical education mission.This article is part of a theme issue of Academic Medicine on the Title VII health professions training programs.

Obstetric Privileges For Family Physicians: A National Study

Background: We surveyed family physicians in the US to determine how many include obstetric services in their practices and to compare trends over time. Methods: In the 1993 Practice Profile Survey, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) surveyed a random sample of active members whose mailing address was in one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia. The sample was stratified by nine census divisions; after two mailings 2460 responses were received from the 4400 physicians in the sample (56 percent response). Results: Eighty-seven percent of active members had hospital admission privileges. Although there were regional disparities in the proportion of family physicians with various hospital privileges, overall 94 percent perceived that the privileges afforded them were appropriate. Approximately 26 percent of AAFP active members in 1993, compared with 29 percent in 1988, included routine obstetric care in their hospital practices. A higher proportion of family physicians in the West North Central census division had privileges at various levels of obstetric care than did family physicians in other census divisions; for example, while 57 percent of family physicians in the West North Central census division had privileges in routine obstetric care, only 9 percent of family physicians in the East South Central division had these privileges. For those family physicians who did not have privileges for any obstetric care, most indicated that they chose not to include obstetric care in their hospital practices. Family physicians most likely to have had obstetric privileges included those who practiced in nonmetropolitan areas (39 percent of family physicians had privileges in routine obstetric care compared with 21 percent in an urban setting) and those who completed a family practice residency program (33 percent with routine obstetric privileges compared with 13 percent who did not complete a 3-year residency in family practice).

The generalist health care workforce: issues and goals.

The generalist health care workforce in the United States is best characterized as those practitioners who deliver primary care services. These include most family physicians, general internists, general pediatricians, nurse practitioners, osteopathic family physicians, and physician assistants. Based on a variety of factors, including health care needs, managed care/HMO hiring practices, international comparisons, and health care costs, the case for increasing the amount and proportion of generalist providers is compelling. Projections strongly suggest a worsening shortfall of generalists if no change is made. Changing the career choices of medical students to promote generalism, even significantly, will take 20 years or more to have a meaningful impact. Therefore, retraining specialist physicians in oversupply to practice as generalists is an important option to consider. To best meet the nation’s health care needs, three issues need to be addressed in the context of health care reform: the creation of a “system” of generalist care that integrates into a coherent and collaborative framework the scopes of practice of the various generalist disciplines; the pursuit of a workable short-term model to convert specialist physicians into generalist physicians, led jointly by family medicine, general internal medicine, and general pediatrics; and a significant change in the medical education process to produce an ample supply of well-trained generalists.