Stacey, Stephen

Abstract Context Research and scholarship are core drivers of medicine in the modern era. Evidence-based practice continues to replace expert opinion and long-held practice beliefs. Involvement in the development and writing of these guidelines is critical for Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (DOs) to maintain a seat at the academic table. According to the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), 11 % of practicing physicians in the US are DOs. This number is growing, as nearly 25 % of current medical students attend an osteopathic medical school. Without involvement in guideline development, DOs risk giving up control of their own practice of medicine. Objectives To quantify the contribution of DOs to the body of literature guiding practice, author information was extracted from all US-based guidelines published in the years 2021, 2022, and 2023 listed in the Emergency Care Research Institute (ECRI) Guidelines Trust database. Methods Authors of US-based guidelines listed in the ECRI Trust database from the years 2021–2023 were counted and categorized into one of three groups based on terminal degree: MD holders, DO holders, and Other-degree holders. Authors whose degrees could not be identified were counted as “Unidentifiable.” Additional data including sponsoring organization, organization type, and specialty were collected. Results A total of 674 guidelines were published by US organizations in 2021, 2022, and 2023, with 604 reporting author information. A total of 9,376 authors were counted. Of that, 7,253 held an MD (77 %), 110 held a DO (1.2 %), and 1,848 held another terminal degree (19.7 %); meanwhile, 1.66 % of counted authors did not have an identifiable degree. A total of 604 guidelines published by US organizations were identified. Of these, 88 (14.6 %) contained at least one DO author in their author list. Sixty-two unique specialties were identified, along with 130 unique sponsoring organizations. Of those specialties, 28 (44.4 %) had at least one DO author of at least one guideline. Of 130 sponsoring organizations, 44 (33.8 %) developed at least one guideline with at least one DO author. No osteopathic sponsoring organizations were identified. Conclusions Based on these results, we conclude that DOs are underrepresented in the development of guidelines.

Background: Academic family medicine (FM) physicians aim to balance competing needs of providing clinical care with nonclinical duties of program administration, formal education, and scholarly activity. FM residency is unique in its scope of practice, clinical settings, and training priorities, which may differ between university-based and community-based programs. In both types of programs, these competing needs are a source of faculty dissatisfaction and burnout. We performed this study to explore the allocation of nonclinical administrative full-time equivalents (FTE) for FM residency core faculty members. Results: Reported nonclinical administrative FTE time allocation is equivalent between university/medical school-based and community-based programs. The ideal proportion of FTE distribution identified by DCs had greater amounts of direct clinical care compared to greater emphasis on precepting time identified by PDs. DCs and PDs agreed that administrative time should be used for advising residents, curriculum development and delivery, and evaluation of resident performance. Barriers to allocating additional administrative time for DCs included loss of revenue and pressure by hospital-level leadership. PDs responded that the need for clinical supervision of residents was most significant. Methods: We performed our research through a cross-sectional survey of FM department chairs (DC) and residency program directors (PD) conducted by the Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the data and Pearson’s χ2 tests to evaluate bivariate relationships. Conclusions: DCs and PDs offer a similar ideal picture of core responsibilities, though subtle differences remain. These differences should be considered for the next revision of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education minimum program standards to best meet the needs of all FM programs.