BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Preparing the Personal Physician for Practice (P4) project (2007 to 2014) involved a comparative case study of experiments conducted by 14 selected family medicine programs designed to evaluate new models of residency education that aligned with the patient-centered medical home (PCMH). Changes in length, structure, content, and location of training were studied. METHODS: We conducted both a critical review of P4 published Evaluation Center and site-specific papers and a qualitative narrative analysis of process reports compiled throughout the project. We mapped key findings from P4 to results obtained from a survey of program directors on their top 10 "need to know" areas in family medicine education. RESULTS: Collectively, 830 unique residents took part in P4, which explored 80 hypotheses regarding 44 innovations. To date, 39 papers have resulted from P4 work, with the P4 Evaluation Center producing 17 manuscripts and faculty at individual sites producing 22 manuscripts. P4 investigators delivered 21 presentations and faculty from P4 participating programs delivered 133 presentations at national meetings. For brevity, we present findings derived from the analyses of project findings according to the following categories: (1) how residency training aligned with PCMH; (2) educational redesign and assessment; (3) methods of financing new residency experiences; (4) length of training; (5) scope of practice; and (6) setting standards for conducting multisite educational research. CONCLUSIONS: The P4 project was a successful model for multisite graduate medical education research. Insights gained from the P4 project could help family medicine educators with future residency program redesign.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Preparing the Personal Physician for Practice (P4) project (2007 to 2014) involved a comparative case study of experiments conducted by 14 selected family medicine programs designed to evaluate new models of residency education that aligned with the patient-centered medical home (PCMH). Changes in length, structure, content, and location of training were studied. METHODS: We conducted both a critical review of P4 published Evaluation Center and site-specific papers and a qualitative narrative analysis of process reports compiled throughout the project. We mapped key findings from P4 to results obtained from a survey of program directors on their top 10 "need to know" areas in family medicine education. RESULTS: Collectively, 830 unique residents took part in P4, which explored 80 hypotheses regarding 44 innovations. To date, 39 papers have resulted from P4 work, with the P4 Evaluation Center producing 17 manuscripts and faculty at individual sites producing 22 manuscripts. P4 investigators delivered 21 presentations and faculty from P4 participating programs delivered 133 presentations at national meetings. For brevity, we present findings derived from the analyses of project findings according to the following categories: (1) how residency training aligned with PCMH; (2) educational redesign and assessment; (3) methods of financing new residency experiences; (4) length of training; (5) scope of practice; and (6) setting standards for conducting multisite educational research. CONCLUSIONS: The P4 project was a successful model for multisite graduate medical education research. Insights gained from the P4 project could help family medicine educators with future residency program redesign.