BACKGROUND: 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. AIM: To compare the impact of a traditional ambulatory training model with a templated 4 + 1 model. SETTING: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. PARTICIPANTS: Residents, faculty, and administrative staff. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Development of a templated 4 + 1 model of residency where trainees do not attend to inpatient and outpatient responsibilities simultaneously. PROGRAM EVALUATION: 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). DISCUSSION: 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.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: 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. AIM: To compare the impact of a traditional ambulatory training model with a templated 4 + 1 model. SETTING: 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. PARTICIPANTS: Residents, faculty, and administrative staff. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Development of a templated 4 + 1 model of residency where trainees do not attend to inpatient and outpatient responsibilities simultaneously. PROGRAM EVALUATION: 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). DISCUSSION: 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.
Authors: Eric S Holmboe; Judith L Bowen; Michael Green; Jessica Gregg; Lorenzo DiFrancesco; Eileen Reynolds; Patrick Alguire; David Battinelli; Catherine Lucey; Daniel Duffy Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Linda M Roth; Richard K Severson; Janice C Probst; Joseph C Monsur; Tsveti Markova; Sander A Kushner; Maryjean Schenk Journal: Fam Med Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Ralph I Horwitz; Jerome P Kassirer; Eric S Holmboe; Holly J Humphrey; Abraham Verghese; Carol Croft; Minjung Kwok; Joseph Loscalzo Journal: Am J Med Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Kris G Thomas; Colin P West; Carol Popkave; Lisa M Bellini; Steven E Weinberger; Joseph C Kolars; Jennifer R Kogan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-05-28 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Maureen D Francis; Mark L Wieland; Sean Drake; Keri Lyn Gwisdalla; Katherine A Julian; Christopher Nabors; Anne Pereira; Michael Rosenblum; Amy Smith; David Sweet; Kris Thomas; Andrew Varney; Eric Warm; David Wininger; Mark L Francis Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2015-03
Authors: Maureen D Francis; Eric Warm; Katherine A Julian; Michael Rosenblum; Kris Thomas; Sean Drake; Keri Lyn Gwisdalla; Michael Langan; Christopher Nabors; Anne Pereira; Amy Smith; David Sweet; Andrew Varney; Mark L Francis Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2014-09
Authors: Marion Stanley; Bridget O'Brien; Katherine Julian; Sharad Jain; Patricia Cornett; Harry Hollander; Robert B Baron; R Jeffrey Kohlwes Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Paul O'Rourke; Eva Tseng; Karen Chacko; Marc Shalaby; Anne Cioletti; Scott Wright Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 5.128