Citations

Background Acute otitis externa (AOE) is a common condition encountered in primary care. Evidence-based guidelines recommend topical antimicrobial therapy as first-line treatment for uncomplicated disease regardless of diabetes status. However, clinicians may escalate treatment in patients with diabetes because of concern for necrotizing otitis externa (NOE), a rare but potentially life-threatening complication. This study aimed to evaluate whether diabetes status influences systemic antibiotic use in uncomplicated acute otitis externa and to assess factors associated with treatment decisions. Methods A cross-sectional survey was distributed to primary care clinicians participating in a multi-state primary care practice-based research collaborative, comprising physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician associates within the specialties of family medicine, general pediatrics, and general internal medicine. The survey instrument asked clinicians what they would select as first-line treatment for uncomplicated AOE in patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM). It also assessed factors influencing management decisions as well as confidence in identifying NOE. The primary outcome was whether the clinician reported they would use systemic antibiotics for treatment of AOE, comparing treatment decisions using relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for antibiotic exposure given the presence of DM. Results Out of 257 invitations, 58 respondents completed the survey (22.6%). Systemic antibiotics were selected more frequently when DM was present (19.0%) compared with when DM was absent (5.2%), resulting in a significantly increased likelihood of reported systemic antibiotic use (RR = 3.67; 95% CI, 1.08–12.47; p = 0.043). Clinician confidence in identifying NOE varied, with most respondents reporting only slight or moderate confidence. Conclusions Primary care clinicians reported substantially higher use of systemic antibiotics when managing uncomplicated AOE in patients with DM, representing nearly a fourfold increase in antibiotic exposure despite guideline recommendations favoring topical therapy alone. These findings highlight practice variation which may be driven by concern for necrotizing otitis externa, underscoring opportunities to improve antibiotic stewardship and clinician confidence in risk stratification.

Background and Objectives: Despite wide agreement on the importance of building research capacity to the specialty of family medicine, no standard exists for defining or measuring that growth. Previous work to address this gap yielded the Productivity and Capacity Evaluation in Research (PACER) Tool, a list of quantitative research metrics grouped into seven categories. We surveyed family medicine department chairs to understand which categories of PACER metrics they considered most valuable in evaluating their department’s research capacity. We also aimed to compare reported research capacity in 2024 with answers given by family medicine department chairs in 2021. Methods: A cross-sectional survey administered through the Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA) was used to gather information from family medicine department chairs in the United States and Canada. One question asked chairs to evaluate their department’s research capacity, and nine questions assessed the relative importance of the seven PACER Tool categories. Results: A total of 218 surveys were delivered, with 111 (50.9%) completed. Survey results demonstrated that program chairs determined funding to be the most impactful category. We found no clear trend in the second most important or least important categories. Results also showed no statistically significant change in reported research capacity between 2021 and 2024. Conclusions: Funding emerged as the category of research metrics viewed as most important by the greatest number of family medicine department chairs. Although other categories of metrics also were viewed as important, this survey demonstrated no clear pattern of their relative importance in this population.

Introduction: Procedural competence is essential to clinical practice, yet assessment of technical skills such as suturing remains highly variable and often relies on subjective evaluations. While tools with limited validity evidence exist in surgical specialties, their use in family medicine is limited. This study evaluated the interrater reliability of a suture assessment tool developed by Sundhagen et al when used by family medicine faculty to evaluate the simple interrupted suturing skills of family medicine residents. Methods: In this cross-sectional reliability study, 15 core faculty members from four family medicine residency programs were recruited to evaluate the simple interrupted suturing skills of 20 family medicine residents using a modified suture assessment tool developed by Sundhagen et al. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to evaluate interrater reliability. Light’s κ was calculated for each question. Results: A total of 15 evaluators assessed 20 videos of resident suturing performance. The Light’s κ estimates ranged from 0.11 to 0.50, indicating slight to moderate agreement. None of the items reached the threshold for substantial agreement (κ≥0.61). Conclusions: The modified Sundhagen suture assessment tool demonstrated fair to moderate reliability when used to evaluate family medicine residents. While the level of agreement limits the tool’s effectiveness for standardized summative assessment, the tool may still offer value as a structured framework for formative feedback. Future studies may improve reliability through refined rater training, behaviorally anchored scoring criteria, and the use of visual exemplars.

Introduction: Family medicine contributes less scholarship and receives much less grant money than other specialties. Understanding when and how this disparity begins is a key step in addressing the gap in family medicine scholarship. Methods: We analyzed data from the National Resident Matching Program’s (NRMP’s) Charting Outcomes in the Match (2016–2024) to compare family medicine applicants with applicants to other specialties (ie, internal medicine, pediatrics, and all specialties combined). We examined the mean number of research experiences and the number of presentations and publications applicants had completed prior to starting residency. Additionally, we analyzed NRMP surveys to evaluate the weight applicants placed on institutional research support when choosing a residency program and the weight program directors placed on applicants’ research experience. Results: Family medicine applicants consistently reported fewer research experiences and presentations/publications than applicants to internal medicine, pediatrics, and all specialties combined. Osteopathic applicants showed the lowest research participation across all specialties we compared. Among other specialties, family medicine applicants placed less importance on programs’ research support, and family medicine residency program directors were less likely to consider research involvement when selecting applicants. Conclusions: Our results suggest that family medicine’s underrepresentation in research begins during the residency application process or sooner. Increased involvement in family medicine research among medical students should be a key component of strategies for bridging the research gap.

Abstract Context Evidence supports osteopathic manipulative medicine (OMM) as an effective manual therapy, although it remains underutilized by Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (DOs). Objectives Understanding barriers preventing the broader adoption of OMM is essential to expanding access to it as a noninvasive treatment option. We set out to survey both DOs and non-DO clinicians to identify perceived barriers to OMM. Methods Survey items were adapted from prior studies utilizing an iterative refinement process that included cycles of pilot testing with revisions. Participants were recruited internally from Mayo Clinic Midwest – a large, multistate, healthcare system in the Midwest region of the United States – utilizing internal email. Participants were given a descriptive survey that was developed with support from the Mayo Clinic Survey Research Center. Results The survey was sent out to a total of 952 individuals, including 184 DOs and 768 non-DO clinicians (MD, Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery [MBBS], nurse practitioners, and physician assistants). Respondents included 76 DOs (41.3 % response rate) and 91 non-DOs (11.8 % response rate). Of the 76 DO respondents, 21 (27.6 %) reported utilizing OMM clinically. Commonly reported barriers include time limitations, poor public perception, and lack of training in residency, and time is allocated to other professional interests. Conclusions Within a large health system that includes primary care and specialty care, few DOs practice OMM, citing time constraints, lack of residency training, and competing professional interests as primary barriers. These challenges might successfully be addressed through targeted osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) education in residency programs, enhanced compensation, and improved referral pathways.

Introduction/Objectives: Little is known about the prevalence of patient-reported social risk factors and the use of the HOUSES Index, a simple, reliable method of assessing socioeconomic status (SES) based on publicly available housing data, in a predominantly rural, primary care population. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of adult patients paneled to family medicine clinicians in a US Midwest health system as of December 31, 2022. Patients’ listed address determined HOUSES Index as quartile rank (Q1 lowest SES) and rural/urban status. Social risk data including housing, food, transportation, finances, and violence were collected from health record questionnaires. A mixed effect model was used to assess associations between social risk, HOUSES Index, and rurality. Results: Of the 352 355 patients included, rural patients were more likely than urban patients to report all social risk factors and had lower SES as measured by HOUSES quartiles. In the mixed effects analysis, HOUSES quartile was independently predictive of reporting an at-risk social risk factor (Q1 vs Q4 OR = 2.27, 95% CI = 2.19-2.37), but rurality was not (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.97-1.07) after adjusting for HOUSES. Conclusions: The increased prevalence of social risk factors among rural residents is largely explained by individual SES measured by HOUSES Index.

Toxins from ingested water can significantly affect overall physical health in children and adults. In the United States, domestic water wells are not commonly tested for any heavy metal contaminants. It is well-known that chronic arsenic ingestion from water is linked to serious health effects. We surveyed patients at our academic institution via emailed questionnaires in 2023 to determine whether those with children living at home reported different patterns of behavior around well water testing as compared to those without. Survey data were collected from 8994 respondents in the U.S. Midwest who reported using residential well water. Results were used to evaluate the influence of children in the home on testing behaviors, and secondarily, whether parental demographics affected testing frequency. Respondents with children at home did not report increased testing frequency compared to those without. In parents who did report testing, having more children, being younger, and living in Wisconsin were associated with an increased frequency. Parental gender, race, and ethnicity did not correlate with testing behaviors. A total of 70% of respondents did not feel concerned about their water safety and 85% were not concerned about arsenic specifically in their water. Increased risk of toxicity to children from arsenic does not appear to influence reported well water testing behavior among parents.

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.

Background: Arsenic is a well-known toxin which may contaminate household water. It is harmful when ingested over prolonged periods of time. As a result, public health experts recommend that water should be screened and treated to prevent arsenic ingestion. In the United States, the responsibility of testing and treatment of private wells falls on homeowners. Despite recommendations for routine screening, this is rarely done. Objectives: To assess the prevalence of well water use in a Midwestern patient population, how patients and clinicians perceive the risks of arsenic in well water, and whether additional resources on well water testing are desired. These findings will be used to influence tools for clinicians regarding symptom and examination findings of chronic arsenic exposure and potentiate the distribution of informational resources on well water testing. Methods: Surveys were sent via email to all actively practicing primary care clinicians at the Mayo Clinic in the United States Midwest, and all active adult patients at the Mayo Clinic in the same region. Our team analyzed survey data to determine whether both patients and clinicians are aware of the health effects of chronic arsenic toxicity from well water, the need for routine well water testing and whether each group wants more information on the associated risks. Results: Both patients and primary care clinicians worry about arsenic exposure. Patients with well water are concerned about their water safety yet feel uninformed about testing options. Clinicians do not know how prevalent well water use is among their patients, feel uninformed about the chronic risks of arsenic exposure and the physical examination associated with it. Both groups unanimously want more information on testing options. Conclusions: Our findings show a significant reliance on well water use in the American Midwest, and unanimous support for the need for further well water testing information and resources for patients and their clinicians.