Anastasia J Coutinho1, Anneli Cochrane2, Keith Stelter3, Robert L Phillips2, Lars E Peterson2. 1. College of Medicine, University of Vermont; now with Santa Rosa Family Medicine Residency, Santa Rosa, California. 2. American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky. 3. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Narrowing of the scope of practice of US family physicians has been well documented. Proposed reasons include changing practice patterns as physicians age, employer restrictions, or generational choices. Determining components of care that remain integral to the practice of family medicine may be informed by assessing gaps between the intended scope of practice of residents and actual scope of practice of family physicians. OBJECTIVE: To compare intended scope of practice for American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) initial certifiers at residency completion with self-reported actual scope of practice of recertifying family physicians. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional data were collected from a practice demographic questionnaire completed by all individuals applying to take the ABFM Maintenance of Certification for Family Physicians examination. Initial certifiers reported intentions and recertifiers reported actual provision of specific clinical activities. All physicians who registered for the 2014 ABFM Maintenance of Certification for Family Physicians examination were included: 3038 initial certifiers and 10,846 recertifiers. EXPOSURES: Initially certifying physicians vs recertifying physicians. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The Scope of Practice for Primary Care score (scope score), a psychometric scale, was calculated for each physician and ranged from 0 to 30, with higher numbers equating to broader scope of practice. Recertifiers were categorized by decades in practice. RESULTS: The final sample included 13,884 family physicians and, because the questionnaire was a required component of the examination application, there was a 100% response rate. Mean scope score was significantly higher for initial certifier intended practice compared with recertifying physicians' reported actual practices (17.7 vs 15.5; difference, 2.2 [95% CI, 2.1-2.3]; P < .001). Compared with recertifiers, initial certifiers were more likely to report intending to provide all clinical services asked except pain management; this included obstetric care (23.7% vs 7.7%; difference, 16.0% [95% CI, 14.4%-17.6%]; P < .001), inpatient care (54.9% vs 33.5%; difference, 21.4% [95% CI, 19.4%-23.4%]; P < .001), and prenatal care (50.2% vs 9.9%; difference, 40.3 [95% CI, 38.5%-42.2%]; P < .001). Similar differences from initial certifiers were present when comparisons were limited to recertifiers in practice for only 1 to 10 years. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study of family physicians taking ABFM examinations, graduating family medicine residents reported an intention to provide a broader scope of practice than that reported by current practitioners. This pattern suggests that these differences are not generational, but whether they are due to limited practice support, employer constraints, or other causes remains to be determined.
IMPORTANCE: Narrowing of the scope of practice of US family physicians has been well documented. Proposed reasons include changing practice patterns as physicians age, employer restrictions, or generational choices. Determining components of care that remain integral to the practice of family medicine may be informed by assessing gaps between the intended scope of practice of residents and actual scope of practice of family physicians. OBJECTIVE: To compare intended scope of practice for American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) initial certifiers at residency completion with self-reported actual scope of practice of recertifying family physicians. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional data were collected from a practice demographic questionnaire completed by all individuals applying to take the ABFM Maintenance of Certification for Family Physicians examination. Initial certifiers reported intentions and recertifiers reported actual provision of specific clinical activities. All physicians who registered for the 2014 ABFM Maintenance of Certification for Family Physicians examination were included: 3038 initial certifiers and 10,846 recertifiers. EXPOSURES: Initially certifying physicians vs recertifying physicians. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The Scope of Practice for Primary Care score (scope score), a psychometric scale, was calculated for each physician and ranged from 0 to 30, with higher numbers equating to broader scope of practice. Recertifiers were categorized by decades in practice. RESULTS: The final sample included 13,884 family physicians and, because the questionnaire was a required component of the examination application, there was a 100% response rate. Mean scope score was significantly higher for initial certifier intended practice compared with recertifying physicians' reported actual practices (17.7 vs 15.5; difference, 2.2 [95% CI, 2.1-2.3]; P < .001). Compared with recertifiers, initial certifiers were more likely to report intending to provide all clinical services asked except pain management; this included obstetric care (23.7% vs 7.7%; difference, 16.0% [95% CI, 14.4%-17.6%]; P < .001), inpatient care (54.9% vs 33.5%; difference, 21.4% [95% CI, 19.4%-23.4%]; P < .001), and prenatal care (50.2% vs 9.9%; difference, 40.3 [95% CI, 38.5%-42.2%]; P < .001). Similar differences from initial certifiers were present when comparisons were limited to recertifiers in practice for only 1 to 10 years. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study of family physicians taking ABFM examinations, graduating family medicine residents reported an intention to provide a broader scope of practice than that reported by current practitioners. This pattern suggests that these differences are not generational, but whether they are due to limited practice support, employer constraints, or other causes remains to be determined.
Authors: Monee Rassolian; Lars E Peterson; Bo Fang; H Clifton Knight; Michael R Peabody; Elizabeth G Baxley; Arch G Mainous Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Ann S O'Malley; Eugene C Rich; Lisa Shang; Tyler Rose; Arkadipta Ghosh; Dmitriy Poznyak; Deborah Peikes Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2019-01-06 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: M Gentry Byrd; Rocio B Quinonez; R Gary Rozier; Ceib Phillips; Marian Mehegan; Ledia Martinez; Kimon Divaris Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2018-07
Authors: Benjamin F Crabtree; William L Miller; Jenna Howard; Ellen B Rubinstein; Jennifer Tsui; Shawna V Hudson; Denalee O'Malley; Jeanne M Ferrante; Kurt C Stange Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 5.166