Moving Forward in GME Reform: A 4 + 1 Model of Resident Ambulatory Training
- 442 Downloads
Traditional ambulatory training models have limitations in important domains, including opportunities for residents to learn, fragmentation of care delivery experience, and satisfaction with ambulatory experiences. New models of ambulatory training are needed.
To compare the impact of a traditional ambulatory training model with a templated 4 + 1 model.
A large university-based internal medicine residency using three different training sites: a patient-centered medical home, a hospital-based ambulatory clinic, and community private practices.
Residents, faculty, and administrative staff.
Development of a templated 4 + 1 model of residency where trainees do not attend to inpatient and outpatient responsibilities simultaneously.
A mixed-methods analysis of survey and nominal group data measuring three primary outcomes: 1) Perception of learning opportunities and quality of faculty teaching; 2) Reported fragmentation of care delivery experience; 3) Satisfaction with ambulatory experiences. Self-reported empanelment was a secondary outcome. Residents’ learning opportunities increased (p = 0.007) but quality of faculty teaching was unchanged. Participants reported less fragmentation in the care residents provide patients in the inpatient and outpatient setting (p < 0.0001). Satisfaction with ambulatory training improved (p < 0.0001). Self-reported empanelment also increased (p < 0.0001). Results held true for residents, faculty, and staff at all three ambulatory training sites (p < 0.0001).
A 4 + 1 model increased resident time in ambulatory continuity clinic, enhanced learning opportunities, reduced fragmentation of care residents provide, and improved satisfaction with ambulatory experiences. More studies of similar models are needed to evaluate effects on additional trainee and patient outcomes.
KEY WORDSambulatory training 4 + 1 model
The authors wish to acknowledge the following people for their support in the creation of the 4 + 1 model and the use of survey questions: Dr. Jeffrey Weiss, Program Director, Internal Medicine Residency at Tulane University; Dr. Marc Shalaby, Program Director, Internal Medicine Residency at Lehigh Valley; and Dr. Linda Roth, Department of Family Medicine, Wayne State University.
The authors would also like to thank the residents, chief residents, and administrative staff of the Hofstra North Shore LIJ IM Residency Program for their flexibility in transitioning to a new model of residency training and Rinkal Sundhani for her editorial assistance with this manuscript.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.
- 3.Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Report to Congress: Improving incentives in Medicare (June 2009). Available at: http://www.medpac.gov/document_TOC.cfm?id=576. Accessed February 10, 2013.
- 4.Wynn BO, Guarino C, Morse L, Cho M. Alternative ways of financing graduate medical education. Report no. WR-369- ASPE. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation; 2006.Google Scholar
- 5.Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. ACGME Program Requirements for Residency Education in Internal Medicine. Available at http://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/tabid/134/ProgramandInstitutionalGuidelines/MedicalAccreditation/InternalMedicine.aspx. Accessed February 10, 2013.
- 12.Skeff KM, Stratos GA, Bergen MR. Evaluation of a medical faculty development program: a comparison of traditional pre/post and retrospective pre/post self-assessment ratings. Eval Health Prof. 1992; 15:350–366.Google Scholar