Welcome to the STFM Messenger Online
The STFM Messenger is the official news publication of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine.
Each month, members with e-mail addresses on file with STFM will receive an e-mail with links to the Messenger's online stories. Members will be also be able to access the Messenger's current issue as well as its archives on the STFM Web site at www.stfm.org/Messenger.
We welcome your feedback on our member newsletter; send your ideas and comments to Traci Nolte, tnolte@stfm.org.
Foundation Funding Available for Group Projects
The Group Project Fund, approved by the STFM Foundation Board of Trustees in April, is now ready for implementation. This fund encourages STFM Group members to collaboratively plan, develop, implement, evaluate, and disseminate findings from educationally related scholarly projects that benefit group members, STFM, and the discipline of family medicine. The Foundation’s Trustees will set aside 50% of the undesignated net proceeds of each annual giving campaign to fund these projects. Thanks to the hard work of Chair Jim Tysinger, PhD, and the members of the ad hoc committee on the Group Project Fund, the process for fund application and the criteria for STFM group proposals have been determined. This information was distributed to all group chairs October 19. Following is a summary of the committee’s report.
Funding Details
Projects are funded for a maximum of 2 years, and funding is not renewable. Funds may be budgeted in the categories below. Indirect costs are not provided.
- Required equipment (eg, a laptop computer) and supplies (eg, photocopying).
- Travel (eg, funds to present project outcomes at STFM meetings and/or attend project team meetings).
- Personnel (eg, to purchase a statistical consultant’s time). Funds for faculty and/or staff release time must be contributed “in-kind” by departments/programs.
A project may be funded for 1 or 2 years at one of two levels:
Full Funding: A few proposals of exceptional quality and potential impact may be funded up to $10,000 total.<
Seed Money: to support projects up to $5,000 total.
The Application Process
Any recognized, active STFM Group with an idea for a collaborative educational project that is related to its group’s goals can request Group Project funds by submitting a completed Group Project Fund Application Form to STFM by 12 midnight on December 3, 2007.
Administrative Structure
The STFM Board’s Executive Committee will administer the Group Project Fund and oversee the assessment of submitted proposals for funding. The proposals will be reviewed and selected for funding by:
- the members of the Executive Committee,
- two chairs of STFM Groups who are selected each year by the STFM Board, and
- the chair of the STFM Education Committee
Proposal Content
Projects must relate directly to family medicine education (eg, teaching, curriculum development, evaluation, faculty development) and produce measurable outcomes. Projects may focus on patients, medical students in family medicine settings, or family medicine residents, fellows, faculty, and educators/administrators.
Important Dates
October 19, 2007: RFP announced to STFM group chairs
December 3, 2007, 12 midnight: Deadline for submitting proposals
December 7, 2007: Proposals and review forms will be sent to the reviewers.
January 7, 2008: Reviewers return completed review sheets to STFM.
Mid-January: Review panel selects proposals via conference call.
February 1: The STFM executive director will notify principal investigators of their funding status.
Semi-annual and annual project reports will be submitted to STFM’s executive director.
For more information and the Request for Proposal, click here. Questions regarding the Group Project Fund should be directed to STFM Executive Director Stacy Brungardt, CAE, at sbrungardt@stfm.org or 800-274-2237, ext. 5406).
THE PATIENT-CENTERED MEDICAL HOME: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE STFM BOARD OF DIRECTORS
STFM Groups as Advocates for Patient-centered Medical Homes
This is one in a series of articles on the Patient-centered Medical Home (PCMH). Previous essays have defined the PCMH as “ . . . an ongoing partnership between a patient and a physician who in turn provides continuous and comprehensive care by a team of caregivers and access to the right services at the right time.” The PCMH model includes a personal physician, physician-directed medical practice, orientation to the whole person, coordinated and/or integrated care within the complex health care delivery system, quality and safety of care, enhanced access and an appropriate payment structure.
Because the “Groups On” are at the heart of STFM, our purpose is to highlight them as critical advocates for PCMH. If you attend STFM conferences, it is likely that you are now or have been a member of at least one group. They provide a network of support and opportunity to work with those who share professional interests. Currently, there are 39 groups that provide a forum for discussion, collaboration, and scholarship around teaching, research, and patient care related to the mission of STFM. We invite members of all groups to examine their goals and projects to discover if and how they align with the PCMH. As past group chairs and current group members, we offer our observations about how several groups relate to the PCMH.
I am a member of three groups for which I see clear links to the PCMH for each group. For the Group on Physician-Patient Interaction, the term “patient centered” implies that the physician provides an environment in which the patient’s needs and agenda are understood and valued and decision making is a shared process. These characteristics are the foundation of a partnership between physician and patient and pave the way for an ongoing relationship. The goals of the Group on Behavioral Science reflect those of the PCMH model by seeking effective ways to help residents and students to identify and address the patient’s psychosocial needs. Treating the whole person is the core of comprehensive care. Additionally, working with behavioral science faculty enhances a team approach. The work of the Group on the Family in Family Medicine provides a vital understanding of the influence of the patient’s social context on health. The definition of the PCMH is predominantly focused on the individual patient. One challenge for the Group on the Family in Family Medicine is to expand the definition of the PCMH to include the patient’s family, culture, and broader social context. When viewed through a broader lens, the interests and goals of all three groups contribute directly to the creation of a PCMH.
—Kim Marvel, PhD
The Group on Education Professionals and the Group on Faculty Development are committed equally to the future of family medicine through teaching and academic skill development for community physicians, medical school faculty, residents, students, and educators. These members are active in developing and assessing curricula activities and resources to enhance teaching, research, and leadership toward improvements in learning, patient care, and career satisfaction. Because of their direct involvement in predoctoral and residency curricula development, faculty development, and educational research, members of these groups will play a critical role in explaining the concept of PCMH and determining best teaching practices for students, residents, and faculty. The Group on Education Professionals consists of highly trained educators who work closely with faculty and administrators to plan, implement, and assess curricular strategies, including the utilization of clinical teaching sites. The experienced educators in the Group on Faculty Development are active in providing skill and leadership development during conferences and throughout the year for faculty who practice at various community practices and clinics. They, too, will be instrumental in teaching and planning education research at PCMH sites.
—Ellen Whiting, MEd
To keep a conversation going about how the groups can promote the PCMH, we ask the chairs and members of each group to pose the following questions pertaining to the PCMH during their 2007–2008 meetings:
- How do current group goals and objectives align with the PCMH?
- What information do you need to inform group members about PCMH?
- In what ways will your group members be the most well positioned to advocate and advance PCMH?
- Do group members have suggestions for refining or expanding the definition of PCMH to help colleagues and learners to understand its concept and purpose better?
Shop Online This Holiday Season: No Stress, No Long Lines... Make Life Easier for Yourself
Plan to do all your holiday shopping online this holiday season and help STFM in the process. Remember that you can find everything you need (books, electronics, music, apparel, housewares, and more) using the STFM Online Bookstore and Amazon Portal at www.stfm.org/bookstore.
You will find the same great selection of books previously offered through the STFM Bookstore but with the added bonus of the amazing selection of everything Amazon.com has to offer. You will benefit from the advanced technology that Amazon.com uses to expedite and track shipments and recommend related books and other items.
When your purchases are made through STFM’s portal, www.stfm.org/bookstore, STFM receives a small percentage of the total purchases (books, electronics, or anything that Amazon.com sells). Proceeds from the STFM Online Bookstore will help STFM continue commitments to important activities like the Annals of Family Medicine and Future of Family Medicine programs.
Fourth-year Rotations: What Do They Add to the Educational Curriculum?
Medical school curricula have gone without substantive change for more than 20 years. At most schools, the first 2 years are devoted to preclinical training in the basic sciences. The third year of medical school is remarkably similar from institution to institution, with clinical clerkships in internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, psychiatry, family medicine, and neurology. The institutional differences are mostly due to variations in the length of particular clerkships. The fourth year of medical school is an interesting transition between the clinical clerkships and residency training. After completing a very structured third year and before starting another fairly structured intern year, students are often placed in the position of determining their own educational curriculum for an entire year.
Admittedly there is wide variation but for many schools, the fourth year is less structured than the rest of the medical curriculum. Most of the rotations that students complete are electives. Students view the year as a well-deserved break after the rigors of the first 3 years. Unfortunately, this attitude leads students to overlook the educational possibilities of their fourth year of medical school. Students rarely meet with an advisor to plan the rotations that they will take. I find that students have not spent enough time reflecting on the deficiencies in their education, looking for areas in which they are weak but rather choose their fourth-year rotations for a variety of other reasons.
Students may use their fourth year of medical school to “try out” in various residency programs through away rotations. They may find international experiences that they can pursue in other countries. They may look for rotations that are fun or have an easier schedule. None of these is an inherently bad reason for choosing a fourth-year rotation, but the curriculum in the fourth year of medical school should be as thoughtfully designed as the rest of the educational curriculum.
I would propose that as educators, we should lead the charge to improve the fourth year of medical school. The fourth year curriculum should be designed to correct deficiencies in a student’s training. There should be opportunities for advanced training in specialty areas and the curricular areas that are not well covered in the first 3 years of medical school.
With this in mind, I would like to make the following recommendations for family medicine predoctoral faculty:
(1) Work with the Dean’s office in your institution to implement a requirement for a student/advisor meeting prior to selecting rotations for the fourth year of medical school.
(2) Propose a framework that requires students to reflect on their educational strengths and weaknesses in ways that will allow them to address deficiencies through their fourth-year rotations.
(3) Using the family medicine curriculum guide, decide what recommended curricular areas are not well covered in your institution’s curriculum and develop ways to help students meet those educational goals.
(4) Develop educational goals and objectives for fourth-year rotations such as sub-internships in family medicine that are complementary to those of the third year. For example, if a third-year rotation does not include inpatient care, then consider including this in the fourth-year rotation.
(5) Develop relationships with family medicine residency programs in your institution and your area that can lead to shared expectations for students that will enter the family medicine residency match.
These recommendations will help faculty members to assist the students in their particular institution. Finally, as a specialty, we should consider if there should be some formalized recommendations for rotations and experiences for students who are entering residency in family medicine programs.
This feature of the STFM Messenger is sponsored by the Group on Faculty Development. If you have a submission that will teach us something about embracing the knowledge and skills of our colleagues as educators in 400 words, send it as a Microsoft Word attachment along with your name and contact information to Faculty Development Ideas Feature Editor Deborah Simpson, PhD, at the Medical College of Wisconsin, dsimpson@mcw.edu.
EB CME: How to Make It Happen in Your Institution’s CME Programs
What Is EB CME?
In January 2005, the AAFP’s Commission on Continuing Professional Development (COCPD) proposed that all continuing medical education (CME) activities receiving the AAFP evidence-based CME (EB CME) designation earn double credit for the portion designated as EB CME. The intent of this “2 for 1” credit was to elevate the use and recognition of this type of enhanced CME and drive home the added value of CME based on evidence. EB CME is CME clinical content that is based on the best available evidence and that delivers one to three specific practice recommendations based on evidence sources that have been systematically reviewed by an AAFP-approved evidence-based medicine (EBM) source. To be eligible for EB CME credit, the presentation must cite both the source of the information and the level of strength of the evidence for each practice recommendation made.
Why Isn’t All CME Programming EB CME?
The AAFP is at the forefront of the EB CME programming movement. Other professional societies lack a similar mechanism to encourage medical schools and other CME sponsors to develop EB CME programming, including the American College of Physicians (ACP). While the American Medical Association grants Category 1 credit to clinicians who attend conferences sponsored by approved providers, there is no requirement that the speakers’ recommendations be evidence based, and often expert opinion prevails. Because many family physicians attend CME programs with sponsors outside family medicine, the AAFP and family physicians involved in CME program development have an important role to play in educating other course directors about EB CME.
An Example of Inter-Departmental Collaboration
At the Medical College of Wisconsin, the departments of Family and Community Medicine and Medicine have had a tradition of collegial interaction and support for each department’s annual CME programs. We have met as course directors, attended one another’s conferences, and occasionally even shared speakers.
In 2006, we met to discuss EB CME and identify ways our internal medicine-sponsored Annual Update in Primary Care Course might be modified to better meet the needs of family physicians interested in EB CME. A major consideration was what appeared to be a growing interest in the added value of EB CME that is afforded by the associated double CME credit. Our internal medicine course format included numerous presentations each year that were significantly evidence based; however, the speakers were not aware of the AAFP standards and documentation requirements.
After consulting with family medicine, the internal medicine CME course directors sought to achieve a 100% EB CME accreditation for their 2007 course. Presenters were contacted 3 months prior to the course and informed about the AAFP EB CME policy, including the list of approved evidence sources. Each presenter was asked to provide two to three evidence-based practice recommendations and to identify appropriate references. The course directors reviewed speaker outlines for each talk to identify additional recommendations and in some cases assisted with preparation of the EB CME Faculty Documentation Form. The Faculty Documentation Forms were subsequently e-mailed to all presenters for their review and approval. This allowed the course directors to efficiently collect the necessary documentation and meet the deadline with minimal burden to the faculty presenters. Using this approach, EB CME documentation was submitted for 70% of the presentations. All requested credits were approved, and the maximum prescribed credits for family physicians attending the internal medicine course increased from 13.5 to 21.0 credits.
This course exemplifies the benefits of interdepartmental communication and collaboration for CME program development. The integration of EB CME into this internal medicine-sponsored CME program resulted in an overall improvement in the strength of evidence cited by all presenters. We anticipate that family physicians attending this conference will be more likely to adopt the recommended changes in practice since they know that these recommendations are evidence based. In addition, it is our belief that internal medicine physicians will also benefit from this higher-quality course even if they do not receive the additional EB CME credits.
Thinking of Attending the Next Predoctoral Directors Development Institute (PDDI)? Here’s One Past Attendee’s Accolades
I saw the acronym first. My initial reaction was one of astonishment that I had missed STFM’s wholehearted embrace of hip hop culture. Upon further reading, I was reassured that I was at least not totally clueless and found myself intrigued with what the Predoctoral Directors Development Institute (PDDI) offered. I was then dismayed when I saw the fee for the experience. However, after thinking about it for 2 seconds, I decided I was easily worth it. I approached my chair, who was kind enough to corroborate my opinion of myself, although it was never clear how much his opinion was influenced by the fact that the fee for the PDDI was inclusive of the registration fees for both the Predoctoral Education Conference and the Annual Spring Conference.
I have to say PDDI has done what I wished had been done when I initially began teaching many years ago. It often seems that conventional wisdom dictates that those of us who have been around know what we are doing. I had been working in predoc education as a community preceptor for almost 10 years before I received any formal training in teaching methods. PDDI has prevented me from repeating that same experience as a predoctoral director. PDDI provided an opportunity to evaluate my leadership skills, assess the strength and weakness of my institutional environment, and, importantly, to define both short-term and long-term goals for my tenure in this position. This all occurred in a setting that provided the validation of experience that comes from collaboration with others who are at the beginning of the same journey but also with the added benefit of feedback and direction from others who have already charted this territory.
If I have to sum up my experience of PDDI in a single word, that word would be enriching. While I have always recognized STFM as a great forum for peer to peer collaboration, what distinguishes PDDI from my previous experiences with STFM is that it offers the opportunity for mentored collaboration. So if you are a relatively new predoc director, and if you are reading this and wondering if you are worthy of the fee for this experience, you have already been thinking far too long.
The Predoctoral Directors Development Institute will be held January 24, 2008, just before the Predoctoral Education Conference in Portland, Ore, and April 30, 2008, just prior to the Annual Spring Conference in Baltimore.
Show your support and STFM pride through the purchase of these beautiful gifts, appropriate for any occasion, from graduation to birthdays. The new snap-on lapel pins, all incorporating the STFM logo, are available in gold-plated or silver-plated.
All merchandise is shipped via Federal Express, where applicable. Orders totaling less than $25 cannot be invoiced.
To order, contact Mary Ruhl, STFM, mruhl@stfm.org. 11400 Tomahawk Creek Parkway, Leawood, KS 66211. 800-274-2237, ext. 5404. Fax: 913-906-6096. Web site: www.stfm.org.
Top 10 Downloaded Resources from FMDRL
Below are the top 10 resources downloaded from STFM’s Family Medicine Digital Resources Library from 9-26-07 through 10-25-07.
Deadlines Reminder—Call for Nominations for STFM Research Awards
November 12, 2007 is the nomination deadline for the following awards: 2008 Curtis G. Hames Research Award in Family Medicine and 2008 Best Research Paper Award.
These research awards will be presented at the 2008 STFM Annual Spring Conference, April 30–May 4, in Baltimore, Md. Complete award information, including nomination forms and lists of previous winners, is available at www.stfm.org/awards/awardhub.html.
Seeking Authors for Monographs
The AAFP’s Home Study Program is soliciting proposals for manuscripts for FP Essentials, the program’s monthly, peer-reviewed monograph series. The topics for which proposals are being solicited are:
- Pain Management Update
- Genital Cancers
- Headache
- Challenging Physician-Patient Interactions
- Sleep Disorders
- Advances in Type 2 Diabetes
- Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Compensation is provided to FP Essentials monograph authors. More information is available at www.aafp.org/homestudy/fpessentials/authorinstructions
There’s Still Time to Register for the Ohio State University Faculty Development Series Workshop
Make plans now to attend the STFM Regional Faculty Development Series Workshop at Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, December 1, 2007. The registration fee is $210, which includes lunch, refreshment breaks, and curricular materials.
The sessions will be led by an experienced group of faculty with plenty of time for small-group interaction. A list of faculty and registration details can be found at http://www.stfm.org/facDevConf/Ohio07/index.htm.
Here are highlights of the topics on the schedule:
- Threat to the Triple Threat: How Much Can We Ask of Our Clinical Faculty?
- The One Minute Preceptor and Other Time-efficient Clinical Teaching Skills
- Creative Ways to Teach Clinical Skills
- Faculty Jam: Learning to Teach in Practice
- The Problem Learner: Recognizing, Intervening, and Following
- The Spirit Is Willing But the Flesh Is Weak: Reconsidering Professionalism Lapses
- The Office: It’s More Than a Hit TV Show
- Integrating the Art of Behavioral Science Into Patient Care: The PDQ/APPS Experience
- Case-based Teaching
- Audience Response Systems: Personalizing Group Education
- Teaching on the Inpatient Service: Perspectives From the Academic University Hospital and the Community Hospital Settings
Special thanks to Larry Gabel, PhD, Holly Cronau, MD, and the rest of the local planning committee for their leadership and work on this workshop.
2008 Predoctoral Education Conference Information and Registration Are Now Online!
Join us in beautiful Portland, Ore, next January 24–27 to celebrate what makes us unique—to recharge your teaching batteries and to learn and share with your colleagues. Portland is a wonderful city, with terrific neighborhoods, views, and restaurants. We look forward to seeing you there!
The theme of the 2008 conference, “Igniting Students' Passion for Serving the Underserved," is designed to show the ways we as family medicine educators will be developing the family physicians of the future who will create patient-centered medical homes for ALL of our citizens in the communities. We have many opportunities to influence our students and kindle their interest in primary care, and as medical school faculty we are in a unique position to ignite and foster our students' altruistic spirits. The conference will offer numerous sessions that touch on this theme and several that involve students in the presentations. This will add a wonderful dimension to the usual opportunities for learning from friends and colleagues and, of course, networking!
Plenary presentations from outstanding leaders Christine Stabler, MD; Kenneth Ginsburg, MD; and Tanya Page, MD, will address ways to inspire students and ourselves in educational and practice settings, as well as in our souls. The preconference and conference sessions show a broad variety of topics that will be of great interest to everyone.
At this meeting, we will:
- Celebrate educational collaboration with your family medicine colleagues
- Learn about the state-of-the-art best practices and new ideas in family medicine predoctoral education
- Meet and network with your colleagues at the ONLY meeting dedicated solely to predoctoral education in family medicine.
Visit the conference Web site at www.stfm.org
Behavioral Science Forum Debuts Interactive Poster Session
This year’s Forum for Behavioral Science in Family Medicine, cosponsored by STFM and the Medical College of Wisconsin, experienced record submissions, record attendance, and provided great networking opportunities for its attendees.
The Forum at the Forum featured STFM President John Rogers, MD, MPH, MEd, and James Bray, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine. They reflected on 20 plus years of working together in primary care. Dr Rogers also presented the Saturday plenary, “Strengthen the Core and Stimulate Progress: Assembling Patient-centered Medical Homes.”
During the new interactive poster session, presenters described their works to all attendees via short, 5-minute podium presentations followed by ample time for one-on-one discussions at their individual posters.
Conference attendees (from left to right) Barbara Johnson, MSW; Abby Kirschner, MSSW, LICSW; Jim Anderson, MSSW; Deb Seymour, PsyD: and Lee Petersen, PhD, visit during the poster session.
Poster presenters Susan Graham, MSW, and Raouf Seifeldin, MD, were ready to discuss their work with conference attendees during the new poster session.
STFM 2007–2008 Conference Calendar
2007 Annual Conference on Practice Improvement: Health Information and Patient Education—November 8-11, 2007, Newport Beach, Calif
Ohio State University Faculty Development Workshop—December 1, 2007, Columbus, Ohio. Registration opens in mid-August.
Predoctoral Directors Development Institute—January 24, 2008, prior to the 2008 Predoctoral Education Conference in Portland
Predoctoral Directors Development Institute—April 30, 2008, prior to the 2008 Annual Spring Conference in Baltimore
Predoctoral Education Conference—January 24–27, 2008, Portland
Conference on Families and Health—February 27–March 1, 2008, New Orleans
Annual Spring Conference—April 30–May 4, 2008, Baltimore
Forum for Behavioral Science in Family Medicine—September 24-28, 2008, Chicago
New Members
| California | Ohio |
| Kathleen Kearns, MD | Mary Corrigan, MD |
| Zuhra Musherraf, DO | |
| Oregon | |
| Colorado | Joanne Wu, MD |
| Kenneth Soda, MD | |
| Pennsylvania | |
| Delaware | Annette Gadegbeku, MD |
| Jeffrey Dassel, MD | Brent Simmons, MD |
| Hawaii | South Carolina |
| Mark Kang, MD | Christopher Clemow, MD |
| Diana Clemow, MD | |
| Kentucky | Susan Miranda, MD |
| Thomas Wenger, MD | Kent Sizemore, MD |
| Massachusetts | Texas |
| Rajneesh Hazarika, MD | Shane Maxwell, MD |
| Mary Nordling, MD | Maria Munoz, MD |
| Maria Teresa Ranin, MD | |
| Michigan | Mohammed Samiuddin, MD |
| Maha Ayashi, MD | |
| Jessica Koran, PhD | Utah |
| Leslie Cooper, MD | |
| Mississippi | Wilhelm Lehmann, MD |
| Janet Ricks, MD | |
| Oliver Grey Waldrop, MD | Washington |
| Tabitha Danley, DO | |
| Missouri | DelRene Perkins Davis, ARNP |
| David Pole, MPH | |
| Patricia Sexton, MS | West Virginia |
| Elaine Soper, PhD | |
| New Jersey | |
| Oliver Lontok, MD, MPH | |
| New York | |
| Vidush Athyal, MD, MPH | |
| Kristen McNamara, MD | |
| Tara Stein, MD | |
| Norman Wetterau, MD | |
Annual Giving Campaign Update
We have qualified good news to report this month. The fourth quarter in 2006 produced nearly 50% of annual giving revenue. If this fact holds true for 2007, we will meet our $100,000 goal. Revenues received through October 15 exceeded those through the same period last year by $5,000: $57,000 compared with $52,000. These amounts do not include outstanding pledges. I say this news is “qualified” because our outlook is dependent on two things: (1) continuing participation from our 2006 donors and (2) support from more STFM members when submitting their dues.
I am especially gratified that six department chairs have contributed $1,000 each from their departmental budgets in response to a targeted campaign effort. Our goal from this source is $10,000, which I believe is within reach. This new revenue source can have a significant impact upon our ability to approve Group Project Fund proposals. (See accompanying article.)
Our ability to respond to the needs of STFM members by initiating new programs is only limited by the funding available. As we approach the end of the year, when many of us make our charitable giving decisions, please consider support of STFM an investment in our future and be generous with your contribution. It’s easy—just go online at www.stfm.org, click on Foundation, then donate.
By Macaran A. Baird, MD, MS, President, STFM Foundation