Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_2725_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Preface
- •References
- •Contents
- •Author Biographies
- •About the Series Editors
- •Family Medicine Advocacy Summit
- •Robert Graham Center Workforce Studies
- •HealthLandscape
- •Residency Resources
- •Medical Education Policy Development
- •Residency Program Solutions
- •Residency Leadership Summit
- •Chief Resident Leadership Development Program
- •Educational Resources
- •Continuing Medical Education (CME) Tracking
- •Graduate Medical Education Awards
- •Summary
- •References
- •AAFP Structure
- •AAFP Governance
- •Workforce Mission
- •AAFP Workforce Advocacy
- •Residency Redesign
- •References
- •Osteopathic Recognition Requirements
- •Osteopathic Recognition Program Essential Personnel
- •Osteopathic Faculty
- •Osteopathic Recognition Resident Requirements
- •Osteopathic Educational Program Core Competencies
- •Osteopathic Program Evaluation
- •References
- •Reference
- •5: Association of Family Medicine Administration and the Key Role of the Residency Program Coordinator
- •Appendix 1
- •References
- •References
- •Membership Categories within NAPCRG
- •The AAFP Robert Graham Center
- •AAFP National Research Network (NRN)
- •Family Physicians Inquiry Network (FPIN)
- •The Family Medicine Physician-Scientist Pathway (PSP) Program
- •NAPCRG Grant Generating Project
- •Building Research Capacity (BRC)
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Reference
- •9: Family Medicine Residency Accreditation
- •Why Accreditation Matters
- •ACGME Organizational Structure
- •The Family Medicine Review Committee (RCFM)
- •The Clinical Learning Environment Review (CLER)
- •The Site Visit
- •Initial Accreditation Period
- •Subspecialty Fellowship Application
- •The Annual Program Review
- •The Next Accreditation System Annual Review Process
- •Accreditation Data System (ADS)
- •Citations
- •Accreditation Status
- •Program Requirement Development
- •Competency-Based Medical Education (CBME)
- •References
- •10: Graduate Medical Education Funding
- •Introduction
- •Residency Operating Costs
- •Medicare GME Funding
- •Residency Caps
- •Rural Track Programs
- •Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) Subtype Hospitals
- •Rural Referral Centers
- •Sole Community Hospitals
- •Medicare-Dependent Hospital
- •Medicaid GME Funding
- •Teaching Health Center Funding
- •Veteran’s Administration GME
- •Children’s Hospital GME (CHGME)
- •State Line Item Funding
- •Hospital Supplemental Funding
- •Patient Care Revenue
- •Philanthropy
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Informed Self-Assessment
- •Faculty Development
- •Summary
- •References
- •12: Core Competencies, Milestones, and Entrustable Professional Activities
- •Entrustable Professional Activities
- •Entrustment
- •Pearls
- •Pitfalls
- •References
- •Objectives
- •Educational Strategies
- •Implementation
- •13: A Practical Approach to Curriculum Development
- •Introduction
- •Cognitive Learning Theory
- •Behavioral Learning Theory
- •Humanistic Learning Theory
- •Goals
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Preparation Phase
- •Information Technology Systems
- •Medical Student Rotations
- •Interview Season
- •Application Screening
- •Interview Day
- •Second Looks
- •Postinterview Communication
- •Ranking
- •Using R3®
- •Match® Week
- •SOAP®
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Preboarding
- •Planning New Resident Integration
- •Baseline Assessment
- •Individual Learning Plan
- •Integration Components
- •Longitudinal Integration
- •Learner/Residency/Institutional Goal Alignment
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •History
- •Residency Application
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Identifying Performance Issues
- •Medical Knowledge
- •Patient Care
- •Interpersonal Skills/Communication
- •Professionalism
- •Systems-Based Practice
- •Remediation
- •Medical Knowledge
- •Patient Care
- •Interpersonal Skills/Communication
- •Professionalism
- •Systems-Based Practice
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •19: Faculty Recruitment: Best Practices
- •Background
- •Seeking Out Suitable Candidates: Recruitment Methods
- •Unique Challenges: Faculty Who Are New Residency Graduates
- •Concluding Thoughts: Always Recruit!
- •References
- •20: Faculty Performance
- •Faculty Performance Concerns
- •Appendix 1: Sample Family Medicine Residency Program Director Job Description
- •Job Summary
- •Educational Delivery
- •Evaluation
- •Administration
- •Appendix 2: Sample Family Medicine Residency Core Faculty Job Description
- •Job Summary
- •References
- •21: Faculty Development
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Skills
- •Scholarly Work
- •Tasks that Family Medicine Residency Faculty Perform
- •Role Modeling
- •Faculty Peer Support
- •Teaching
- •Training Courses
- •Workshops
- •Learning by Doing
- •Self-Directed Learning
- •Career Development
- •Organizational Resources
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Promoting Loving Accountability
- •Clinical Setting
- •Curriculum
- •Social Connection
- •Assessment
- •Vision Forward
- •Handling Microaggressions
- •Financial Investment
- •References
- •Building Trust
- •Positionality
- •Set the Stage
- •Normalize Not Knowing
- •Probing, Not Prodding
- •Accurate
- •Addressing Implicit Bias
- •Micro-Level
- •Macro-Level
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Background
- •Risk Factors
- •Stigma
- •FSMB Recommendations Regarding Licensing Questions
- •Physician Health Programs (PHP)
- •Individual-Level Actions
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •References
- •The Clinical Learning Environment
- •Feedback
- •References
- •27: Teaching Maternal Health Care
- •ACGME Requirements
- •Obstetric Family Medicine Faculty Shortage
- •Maternity Care Curricular Elements
- •Preconception Care
- •Prenatal Care
- •Immunizations
- •Common Conditions Which Complicate Pregnancy
- •Breastfeeding
- •Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
- •Substance Use
- •Food Insecurity
- •Inpatient Obstetrical Care
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Family Medicine Residency Advocacy Curricular Development
- •Evaluation
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Faculty Leadership
- •Resident Leadership
- •Patient Satisfaction
- •Professional Conduct
- •Ethical Considerations
- •Curriculum Development
- •The Hidden Curriculum
- •Conclusion
- •Context Matters
- •References
- •30: Teaching Behavioral Science
- •Introduction
- •Core Mental Health Topics
- •Patient-Centered Communication Skills
- •Contextual Care
- •Integrated Behavioral Health Care
- •Master Adaptive Learner
- •Clinic-Based Learning
- •Classroom-Based Learning
- •Interprofessional Education
- •Balint Groups
- •Conclusion
- •Appendix 1: Sample Behavioral Health Rotation (Myerholtz 2023)
- •References
- •31: Teaching Evidence-Based Medicine
- •Introduction
- •Longitudinal Deep Dives
- •Journal Club
- •Family Physicians Inquiries Network
- •Case-Based Learning
- •Day-to-Day Integration
- •Curriculum Development Tips Summary
- •Institutional Involvement
- •Summary
- •References
- •32: Teaching Practice Management
- •Background
- •Current Curriculum
- •Activities
- •Quality Improvement Project
- •Virtual Practice Instructions
- •Presenters
- •Topics Covered
- •References
- •Overview
- •Why Training Is Needed
- •Stressing Communication
- •Balint Group
- •Putting It All Together
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Broad Scope
- •Primary Contact
- •Emerging Technology
- •Rural Generalism
- •Public Health Advocate
- •Rural Practice Systems
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Basic Logistics
- •Operational Considerations
- •Billing Requirements
- •Additional Funding Considerations
- •Engaged Leadership
- •The FMC-Residency Partnership
- •Scheduling
- •Data-Driven Improvement
- •Empanelment
- •Panel Weighting
- •Panel Transitions
- •Team-Based Care
- •Population Management
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Personnel Management
- •Meeting Management
- •Communication Management
- •References
- •37: Managing Change in Family Medicine Residency Programs
- •Introduction
- •What Is Change Management?
- •Change Management Case Study
- •Kotter Model
- •Step 1: Create Urgency
- •Step 4: Communicate Buy-In
- •WIFM Worksheet
- •Step 5: Empower Others
- •Step 6: Generate Quick Wins
- •Step 7: Consolidate Gains
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Negotiating Styles
- •Collaboration
- •Summary
- •References
- •Anticipating Task Cycles
- •Residency
- •Home Life
- •Seize Control
- •Delegate
- •Delegate Residency Chores
- •Delegate Domestic Chores
- •Exercise
- •Lunch
- •Organizing
- •Summary
- •References
- •Introduction
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Anticipate Common Disasters
- •Learn About Your Regional Emergency Infrastructure
- •Learn Your Organization’s Command Center Structures
- •Here Are Some Alternative Care Site Scenarios That May Arise
- •Regional Emergency Infrastructure
- •Managing Your Program During Disaster
- •Community Recovery
- •Consolidate Your Learning
- •Author Background
- •References
- •Conclusion

American Board ofFamily Medicine’s
Commitment toResidency Education:
Advancing Excellence
GeraldFetter andWarrenNewton
2
Key Points
• The American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) is
committed to the powerful evidence that family physicians are essential to improving the population’s health in
the United States, enhancing the patient’s care experience, reducing cost and advancing health equity.
• The ABFM and family medicine residency program
directors have substantial experience working together to
improve residency training and deliver high quality health
care through continuous quality improvement, innovation, continuing professional development, and research.
• While the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical
Education (ACGME) oversees the accreditation of residency programs, the ABFM sets standards for ensuring
that individual residents meet eligibility requirements for
board certication.
• Family medicine residency program directors must ensure
that ABFM requirements are met in order for a resident
trainee to be eligible for board certication.
• The ABFM has adopted expectations for competencybased board certication eligibility using twelve Core
Outcomes.
• Residency learning networks, sometimes known as a
community of practice or learning collaboratives, are
resources to help residency programs engage in continuous quality improvement.
G. Fetter (*)
American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA
Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors (AFMRD),
Leawood, KS, USA
American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP),
Leawood, KS, USA
e-mail: JFetter@theabfm.org
W. Newton
American Board of Family Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA
UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
• The Family Medicine Advancing Innovation in Residency
Education (FM AIRE) initiative is a learning collaborative designed to test fundamental residency and care
delivery innovations including time variable training, care
delivery redesign, competency-based medical education,
and promotion of clinical excellence.
• To assist programs in assessing the impact of their training, the ABFM is partnering with the Association of
Family Medicine Residency Directors (AFMRD) to
administer a centralized graduate survey of ABFM diplomates 3 years after graduation.
• Family medicine residency program directors must be
procient with using the resources available on the ABFM
website and the Residency Training Management (RTM)
System, a secure portal that serves as an operational hub
for information exchange between residency programs
and the ABFM.
• The program director must attest to the ABFM when each
resident has successfully completed their residency program and that the resident is competent in dened outcomes representing specic components of readiness for
autonomous practice.
The American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) is committed to the powerful evidence that family medicine physicians are essential to improving our nation’s population
health, enhancing the care experience, reducing costs, and
advancing health equity. The ABFM’s mission since its
inception in 1969 has been devoted to improving the health
of the public through board certication, residency training,
research, leadership development, and promoting the development of the specialty of Family Medicine. This chapter
will describe fundamental concepts and provide background
information to help program directors and faculty ensure
trainees are eligible for board certication, engage in continuous improvement and residency training innovation, and
shape future training standards.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2025
R. Kellerman, G. Irwin (eds.), Graduate Medical Education in Family Medicine, Excellence in Medical Education 2,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70741-4_2
11

12
G. Fetter and W. Newton
The ABFM and family medicine residency program
directors have substantial experience working together to
improve residency training and deliver high-quality health
care through continuous quality improvement, innovation,
continuing professional development, and research [1–5].
Past residency redesign initiatives such as Preparing the
Personal Physician for Practice (P4), I3 Population Health
Collaborative, Family Medicine National Innovation in
Continuity Clinic Experience (FM-NICCE), Length of
Training (LoT) pilot, and Shaping GME: Future of Family
Medicine Summit have generated an important evidence
base and community perspective on which to draw for developing additional family medicine residency redesign
concepts.
Why Is ABFM Involved inResidency
Education?
Educational and clinical experiences in residency have a
powerful impact on a resident’s preparation for autonomous
clinical practice and future careers. While the Accreditation
Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) oversees the accreditation of residency programs, the ABFM sets
standards for ensuring that individual residents meet eligibility requirements for Board Certication. Program directors
must ensure that those requirements are met in order for a
trainee to be eligible for Board Certication. The fundamental purpose of the family medicine residency director is to
lead a high-quality residency training program that prepares
graduates to be competent, condent, and accountable
topatients, the practice of full scope family medicine, and
the communities in which they will practice. Like the program director, the ABFM plays a critical role in ensuring the
competence of family physicians through its certication
process, quality improvement activities, and educational
standards.
Residency Design inFamily Medicine
Family medicine itself has long been rooted in reforming and
transforming the healthcare system for the benet of patients.
However, the structure of today’s family medicine residency
programs still follows a decades-old model, even as US
healthcare reaches another critical juncture, with health outcomes lagging far behind other developed countries. Welltrained personal family physicians can play a major role in
healing both the healthcare system and communities. There
is considerable momentum in the family medicine residency
community to propose, study, and chart new pathways for
residency education and clinical care delivery by engaging in
a period of scaled residency redesign. Residency programs
must prepare family medicine residents to meet the changing
healthcare needs of their patients and communities [6].
Residency Redesign
For more than a decade, the ABFM has led and collaborated
with program directors to make innovative changes in clinical care and education. Examples include advancements in
measuring GME outcomes, time variable training, residency
learning networks, resident assessment, and the “practice is
the curriculum” initiative. With the adoption of the 2023
ACGME family medicine residency program requirements,
there are many new specications required of family medicine training programs including a signicant shift to competency based medical education (CBME) and, with it, the
need for additional direct observation of resident learners
and provision of actionable feedback (Table2.1).
These changes have necessitated the ABFM to use new
approaches to evaluate board certicationeligibility. To that
end, the ABFM has adopted expectations for competencybased board certication eligibility using 12 Core Outcomes
(Table2.2). These Outcomes represent a commitment to the
public regarding what they should expect from a boardcertied family physician [7].
Another residency design imperative for a program director is to engage in program self-study and build relationships
with other program directors and faculty to swap knowledge
in a longitudinal supportive community of peers that can
meet regularly, in person and virtually. One of the most
effective ways to engage in social learning is by participating
in a Residency Learning Network, sometimes known as a
community of practice or learning collaborative. To that end,
the ABFM Foundation provides seed funding to expand and
design family medicine residency learning networks.
In 2022, the ABFM and ACGME initiated one of the most
signicant residency redesign initiatives in the history of the
discipline. The Family Medicine Advancing Innovation in
Residency Education (FM AIRE) initiative is a learning collaborative designed to test fundamental residency and care
delivery innovations including time variable training, care
delivery redesign, competency-based medical education,
promotion of clinical excellence, and inviting family medicine residencies to develop training models that positively
impact society. This initiative emerged from earlier residency redesign studies that showed positive evidence for
longer length of training though the projects were not sufciently scaled to merit specialty-wide changes to length of
training accreditation requirements [8]. FM AIRE is noteworthy for its aim to attract at least 10% of family medicine
residency programs to participate in the 5–8year-long study
meant to inform future program accreditation requirements.
To learn how your program may participate or view learn-

2 American Board ofFamily Medicine’s Commitment toResidency Education: Advancing Excellence
13
Table 2.1 Van Melle framework for competency-based medical education [13]
Component Description
An outcomes-
based
competency
framework
Progressive
sequencing of
competencies
Learning
experiences
tailored to
competencies in
CBME
Teaching tailored
to competencies
Programmatic
assessment (i.e.,
Program of
Assessment)
Desired outcomes of training are identied based
on societal needs.
Outcomes are paramount so that the graduate
functions as an effective health professional.
In competency-based medical education
(CBME), competencies and their developmental
markers must be explicitly sequenced to support
learner progression from novice to master
clinicians.
Sequencing must consider that some
competencies form building blocks for the
development of further competence.
Progression is not always a smooth, predictable
curve.
Time is a resource, not a driver or criterion.
Learning experiences should be sequenced in a
way that supports the progression of competence.
There must be exibility to accommodate
variation in individual learner progression.
Learning experiences should resemble the
practice environment.
Learning experiences should be carefully
selected to enable the acquisition of one or many
abilities.
Most learning experiences should be tied to an
essential graduate ability.
Clinical teaching emphasizes learning through
experience and application, not just knowledge
acquisition.
Teachers use coaching techniques to diagnose a
learner in a clinical situation and give actionable
feedback.
Teaching is responsive to individual learner
needs.
Learners are actively engaged in determining
their learning needs.
Teachers and learners coproduce learning.
There are multiple points and methods for data
collection.
Methods for data collection match the quality of
the competency being assessed.
Emphasis is on workplace-based assessment.
Emphasis is on providing personalized, timely,
meaningful feedback.
Progression is based on entrustment.
There is a robust system for decision-making.
Good assessment requires attention to issues of
implicit and explicit bias that can adversely affect
the assessment process.
ings from the initiative visit the FM AIRE website at www.
fmaire.org.
The specialty-specic family medicine and common
Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education
(ACGME) requirements call for residency programs to
become progressively sophisticated at measuring trainee
outcomes. Increasingly, there is recognition that true outcome measures of GME must incorporate performance after
Table 2.2 Core outcomes for family medicine residency training [7]
Number Description
1 Develop effective communication and constructive
relationships with patients, clinical teams, and
consultants.
2 Practice as personal physicians, providing rst-contact
access, comprehensive, and continuity medical care for
people of all ages in multiple settings and coordinate care
by helping patients navigate a complex healthcare system.
3 Provide preventive care that improves wellness, modies
risk factors for illness and injury, and detects illness in
early, treatable stages for people of all ages while
supporting patients’ values and preferences.
4 Evaluate, diagnose, and manage patients with
undifferentiated symptoms, chronic medical conditions,
and multiple comorbidities.
5 Diagnose and manage common mental health conditions
in people of all ages.
6 Diagnose and manage acute illness and injury for people
of all ages in the emergency room or hospital.
7 Perform the procedures most frequently needed by
patients in continuity and hospital practices.
8 Care for low-risk patients in prenatal care, labor and
delivery, and post-partum settings.
9 Effectively lead, manage, and participate in teams that
provide care and improve outcomes for the diverse
populations and communities they serve.
10 Model lifelong learning and engage in self-reection.
11 Assess priorities of care for individual patients across the
continuum of care—in-ofce visits, emergency, hospital,
and other settings, balancing the preferences of patients,
medical priorities, and setting of care.
12 Model professionalism and be trustworthy for patients,
peers, and communities.
residency to evaluate whether training goals are accomplished as graduates enter their practice.
The ABFM is partnering with the Association of Family
Medicine Residency Directors (AFMRD) to administer a
centralized graduate survey of ABFM diplomates 3 years
after graduation. The survey results will assist programs in
assessing the impact of their training. Once data are collected, they are aggregated at the program level and shared
with each residency program, along with national comparison data, via the ABFM Resident Training Management
(RTM) portal. This information will be particularly useful
for each program’s continuous improvement process and
help meet ACGME requirements for self-study by informing
Annual Program Evaluation (APE) and Program Evaluation
Committee meetings.
In addition, the ABFM and AFMRD have created the
Strengthening Outcomes and Assessment in Residency
(SOAR) Community of Practice [9, 10]. Using data from the
graduate survey and other sources, each residency can determine at what level it is accomplishing its mission and goals.
For example, for residencies with a mission to produce physicians for underserved rural communities, graduate practice
addresses are geocoded and classied based on Health

14
G. Fetter and W. Newton
Professional Shortage Area designations, allowing the program to assess whether it is or is not meeting its rural-focused
mission. Residencies with a strong procedural or obstetrics
focus can track if their graduates are applying these skills in
practice. This outcome data is fundamental to shaping how
our residency programs adapt and innovate to meet the needs
of the public. Live and virtual residency community events
will be used to share exemplary practices.
Working withABFM
The ABFM maintains specic content and detailed residency
standards on its website and in the Residency Training
Management (RTM) System. Program directors must attest
that each resident has completed the residency program, fullled all necessary requirements, and demonstrated readiness for autonomous practice to be eligible for board
certication [11].
It is essential that the new program director become
familiar with the ABFM Residency Training Management
(RTM) System, a secure portal that serves as an operational
hub for information exchange between the residency program and ABFM. This portal includes a wide variety of
information and is the primary point of contact between the
residency program and ABFM.The RTM contains detailed
information about the Family Medicine Certication Entry
Process, the In-Training Examination (ITE), an ITE Score
Results Handbook and Bayesian Score Predictor, Knowledge
Self-Assessment (KSA) modules, advanced placement credit
for prior training, and the verication/attestation process for
resident completion of boardcerticationeligibility requirements. The RTM includes important functionality like adding new residents, viewing updated ABFM policies, viewing
resident-level reports such as ITE scores, subscribing to
alerts, and password management. The ABFM In-Training
Examination (ITE) and Score Results Handbook, are useful
for gauging a resident’s academic progress and working with
them to build individualized learning plans. The RTM system facilitates the process of issuing advanced placement
credit for prior training in another specialty. All resident
leaves of absence must be recorded in RTM, regardless of
whether a training extension is required.
As a requirement for Board Eligibility, each June, the program director is asked to attest that each resident has completed their residency and that they are competent in dened
outcomes representing specic components of readiness for
autonomous practice [12].
The program director has a critical role in preparing the
family physician workforce and is vital to shaping the future
of the residency program, the success of its mission, and the
responsiveness of family medicine to the public. The ABFM
works to ensure that the program director is successful in
their endeavors.
References
1. Newton WP, Bazemore A, Magill M, Mitchell K, Peterson L,
Phillips RL. The future of family medicine residency training
is our future: a call for dialogue across our community. J Am
Board Fam Med. 2020;33(4):636–40. https://doi.org/10.3122/
jabfm.2020.04.200275.
2. Newton WP, Baxley EG. Preparing the personal physician
for practice: what we’ve learned and where we need to go.
Fam Med. 2018;50(7):499–500. https://doi.org/10.22454/
fammed.2018.398588.
3. Cole S, Fetter J, Oliver MG. Soaring to new heights: strengthening outcomes and assessment in residency. Ann Fam Med.
2023;21(2):197–8. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2974. PMID:
36973049; PMCID: PMC10042569.
4. Newton W, Fetter G, Hoekzema GS, Hughes L, Magill
M. Residency learning networks: why and how. Ann Fam Med.
2022;20(5):492–4. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2885. Epub 2022
Sep 2. PMID: 36228077; PMCID: PMC9512554.
5. Carney PA, Ericson A, Conry C, Martin JC, Douglass AB, Eiff
MP. Measuring clinical preparedness after residency training:
development of a new instrument. Fam Med. 2024;56(1):16–23.
https://doi.org/10.22454/fammed.2023.973082.
6. Newton WP, Magill M.It takes a village to redesign residencies.
J Am Board Fam Med. 2022;35(2):445–8. https://doi.org/10.3122/
jabfm.2022.02.220067.
7. Newton W, Cagno CK, Hoekzema GS, Edje L. Core outcomes of residency training 2022 (provisional). Ann Fam Med.
2023;21(2):191–4. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2977. Epub 2023
Mar 2. PMID: 36863777; PMCID: PMC10042560.
8. ACGME Advancing innovation in residency education: an
ACGME-ABFM collaboration. n.d. Retrieved January 4, 2024,
from https://www.acgme.org/globalassets/pfassets/programre-
sources/aire- proposal- 12.13.21.nal.pdf
9. Strengthening Outcomes and Assessment in Residency. 2024.
Retrieved January 4, 2024. https://www.annfammed.org/content/
annalsfm/21/2/197.full.pdf
10. Coutinho AJ, Levin Z, Petterson S, Phillips RL Jr, Peterson
LE. Residency program characteristics and individual physician
practice characteristics associated with family physician scope of
practice. Acad Med. 2019;94(10):1561–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/
ACM.0000000000002838.
11. Cole SZ, Olmos KEM.From AFMRD: who to go to for what: the
ABFM or the ACGME.Ann Fam Med. 2022;20(2):182–5. https://
doi.org/10.1370/afm.2779.
12. Newton W, Magill M, Barr W, Hoekzema G, Karuppiah S,
Studzman K.Implementing competency based ABFM board eligibility. J Am Board Fam Med. 2023;36:703. https://doi.org/10.3122/
jabfm.2023.230201R0.
13. Van Melle E, Frank JR, Holmboe ES, Dagnone D, Stockley D,
Sherbino J. International competency-based medical education collaborators. A core components framework for evaluating
implementation of competency-based medical education programs. Acad Med. 2019;94(7):1002–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/
ACM.0000000000002743.

American College ofOsteopathic Family
Physicians: Osteopathic Postgraduate
Medical Education inFamily Medicine
ThomasN.Told, RobDano, KennethA.Heiles,
andShirleyL.Sharp
3
Key Points
• The essence of the Single Accreditation Agreement was
that the graduate osteopathic medical accreditation activities of the AOA would stop on June 30, 2020, and the
ACGME would manage all GME accreditation activities
from that time forward.
• Osteopathic Recognition is a formal designation awarded
by ACGME’s Osteopathic Recognition Committee.
• Osteopathic Recognition is open to all ACGMEaccredited programs regardless of specialty.
• It is critical for all residents wishing to sit for the certication boards in Family Medicine and Osteopathic
Manipulative Treatment (OMT) to have a rm foundation
in OPP and OMT.
• The Director of Osteopathic Education must have experience in education, administrative skills, and requisite
osteopathic expertise and experience.
• Osteopathic faculty members are expected to present at
national, regional, and state meetings and local grand
rounds, publish, and provide leadership specic to OPP.
• Each Osteopathic Recognition designated program must
have at least one designated osteopathic resident per program year averaged over 3years.
T. N. Told (*)
Rocky Vista University-Utah, Ivins, UT, USA
e-mail: ttold@rvu.edu
R. Danoff
Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University,
Philadelphia, PA, USA
e-mail: robert.danoff@jefferson.edu
K. A. Heiles
Kansas City University-Joplin, Joplin, MO, USA
e-mail: Kheiles@kansascity.edu
S. L. Sharp
Family and Community Medicine Residency, Medical College of
Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA
e-mail: Shsharp@augusta.edu
• Osteopathic Recognition Milestones must be one of the
tools used to determine and ensure that osteopathic residents are able to practice without supervision upon graduating from the residency program.
• The residency program must maintain a pass rate of 80%
or higher for their rst-time takers on certifying examinations administered by the American Board of Osteopathic
Family Physicians (AOBFP).
• The AOA has board certication authority for 16 main
osteopathic certifying boards covering 27 primary specialties and 48 sub-specialties.
A Historic Decision: TheSingle Accreditation
System
By offering the DO and MD degrees, America is the only
country that has two fully accredited terminal medical degree
pathways leading to the unlimited practice of medicine.
Though it was the strong desire of the founder of osteopathic
medicine, Andrew Taylor Still MD, to have his osteopathic
philosophy of practice embraced as an extra diagnostic and
therapeutic tool by all of organized medicine, that hope was
quickly condemned and rejected by the medical establishment of his day.
For more than 105years following the Flexner Report in
1910, allopathic and osteopathic medicine would develop
separate schools, hospitals, and postgraduate education programs using most of the same educational standards. Both
formed separate accrediting organizations, state licensure
boards, and licensing examinations to support and validate
that their graduates were qualied to be licensed for the
unrestricted practice of medicine [1].
In 2014, the American Association of Colleges of
Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM) and the American
Osteopathic Association (AOA) faced growing pressure to
solve two issues that evaded profession-wide attempts over
the years to mitigate successfully.
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2025
R. Kellerman, G. Irwin (eds.), Graduate Medical Education in Family Medicine, Excellence in Medical Education 2,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70741-4_3
15

16
T. N. Told et al.
First, was the rapidly growing osteopathic student population driven by the development of new colleges of osteopathic medicine. Many of these colleges established satellite
campuses, often of equal size to the home campus [1, 2]. The
growth of osteopathic colleges had previously been controlled by the number of osteopathic hospitals that offered
graduate medical education training opportunities. However,
there has been a slow progressive loss of osteopathic hospitals since 1969 when hospital corporations began buying
them up and either closing them or converting them to allopathic hospitals. This trend continued up to 2012 when the
last osteopathic medical center was purchased in Pontiac,
Michigan. Clinical education for osteopathic students and
residents had adapted to this loss by slowly moving training
opportunities to community hospitals and hospital networks
that were oftentimes near areas of socioeconomic need
where many osteopathic colleges were located [3].
Second, was the long-standing invitation from the
American Medical Association (AMA), also dating back to
1969, that welcomed all osteopathic physicians as members
into the organization. Osteopathic school graduates were
then eligible to train and certify in AMA-accredited residency programs and fellowships. This practice would continue after the AMA residency accreditation process was
transferred to the ACGME in 1981. Though strongly
opposed by the AOA membership, invitations to train in
allopathically accredited residency programs were accepted
by a growing number of osteopathic school graduates who
desired a greater variety of residency and fellowship choices
than those available through the AOA.By 2014 more than
half of osteopathic graduates each year were training in
ACGME programs. A large number of graduates of those
ACGME- accredited residency programs went on to certify
with the member boards of the American Board of Medical
Specialists (ABMS), such as the American Board of Family
Medicine, rather than the AOA.Many of these graduates did
not rejoin the AOA or its specialty organizations after
receiving ABMS certication, resulting in an alarming loss
of young physicians from osteopathic societies and
organizations.
In 2014, the ACGME was confronted with problems of a
different nature that would make the organization more open
to outside collaboration with the AOA.
First, was a surplus of unlled residency positions especially in needed specialties like family medicine. There were
not enough USMD graduates to ll all available ACGMEaccredited residency positions. Graduates of osteopathic colleges were lling the open positions and applying to family
medicine and other primary care residency programs in
greater numbers every year [3].
The second issue arose in 2011 when the ACGME began
instituting a major change in their accreditation framework
known as the Next Accreditation System (NAS). In short, the
NAS continued to allow graduates of non-Liaison Committee
on Medical Education (LCME) member schools to enter
ACGME-accredited programs for residency training, but the
NAS requirements explicitly barred those same graduates
from entering fellowship training in ACGME-accredited
sub-specialties. This negatively impacted a signicant number of ACGME residency graduates, particularly DO’s and
international medical graduates, who were not graduates of
LCME-accredited schools. Osteopathic graduates from both
AOA-accredited residencies and ACGME-accredited residencies who wished to enter subspecialty training were most
impacted by the NAS requirement.
This would be the development that brought an immediate request from the AOA for an emergency meeting with the
ACGME to resolve this problem as quickly as possible.
From that meeting, the ACGME, AOA, and AACOM would
form a task force composed of members from all three organizations to come up with a mutually agreeable solution. The
ACGME would be the organization that proposed the nal
resolution to the problem. It would be an innovative and truly
historic Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining a
plan proposing that all three organizations agree to combine
the accreditation activities of the ACGME and AOA into a
Single GME Accreditation System (SAS). The ACGME
agreed to pause implementation of the NAS to allow a mutually agreed upon transition process to roll out over a 5-year
period starting July 2015. At the same time, osteopathic
graduate medical education accreditation activities of the
AOA would stop by June 30, 2020. The ACGME would then
manage all the accreditation activities from that time forward
for all MD and DO medical school graduates entering
Graduate Medical Education (GME) residency programs in
the United States [4].
In return the AOA and AACOM would gain the
following:
• The AOA and AACOM would become member organiza-
tions of the ACGME and occupy four seats each on the
ACGME Board of Directors.
• The AOA would serve as a Nominating Organization to
the Review Committees (RC) of the ACGME.
• The ACGME would begin accrediting the formerly AOA-
accredited specialty of Osteopathic Neuromusculoskeletal
Medicine and establish a Review Committee to oversee
the process.
• The ACGME would create an application system for
Osteopathic Recognition available to all ACGME-
accredited residencies and fellowships interested in pro-
moting the education of residents in Osteopathic
Principles and Practice (OPP) and Osteopathic
Manipulative Treatment (OMT). The ACGME would also
create an Osteopathic Recognition Committee to oversee
this process.

3 American College ofOsteopathic Family Physicians: Osteopathic Postgraduate Medical Education inFamily Medicine
17
• ACGME senior leadership would include a Senior Vice
President, Osteopathic Accreditation position to oversee
all osteopathic GME [5].
Osteopathic Recognition Requirements
The following is an overview of essential points about the
process for obtaining Osteopathic Recognition. The full text
of the Osteopathic Recognition Requirements can be found
by querying the following link https://www.acgme.org/glo-
balassets/pfassets/programrequirements/801_
osteopathicrecognition_2021v2.pdf on the ACGME website
[4].
Osteopathic Recognition is a formal designation awarded
by the ACGME’s Osteopathic Recognition Committee. It is
open to all ACGME-accredited programs regardless of specialty through a formal application process. Osteopathic
Recognition preserves osteopathic distinctiveness by providing requisite education on the understanding and use of
OPP.The educational curriculum must cover the philosophical and practical approaches to diagnosis and treatment
based on the body’s self-healing and self-regulatory mechanisms. In addition, Osteopathic Recognition designated residency programs must provide hands-on manual skills
training in OMT. Residents can use OMT to enhance their
palpation skills which, in turn, will improve their ability to
diagnose musculoskeletal dysfunctions and identify the
visceral- somatic reexes that accompany many disease processes. OMT techniques can be used to treat or modify those
disease processes.
The four core tenets of osteopathic medicine are:
• The body is a unit; the person is a unit of mind, body, and
spirit.
• The body is capable of self-regulation, self-healing, and
health maintenance.
• Structure and function are reciprocally interrelated.
• Rational treatment is based on an understanding of the
basic principles of body unity, self-regulation, and the
interrelationship of structure and function.
The Osteopathic Recognition program teaches how to
apply these tenets to clinical diagnosis and treatment in order
to enhance the quality and delivery of holistic patient care.
Graduates of osteopathic medical schools accredited by
the Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation
(COCA) are expected to have extensive training on OPP and
OMT as a requirement for graduation. For graduates of
LCME schools who have not had exposure to these foundational skills, there are introductory courses available through
the American Osteopathic Association (including the state,
regional, and national societies of the AOA), select colleges
of osteopathic medicine, and the American College of
Osteopathic Family Physicians (ACOFP).
Many of the colleges of osteopathic medicine located in
most regions of the country have OPP and OMT departments
with dedicated faculty who can provide training or help identify
local training options. These organizations can be a resource to
Osteopathic Recognition designated programs by providing
foundational osteopathic education materials, educational
resources on osteopathic diagnosis and treatment, and guidance
on assessment for determining the skill level of residents [6].
Osteopathic Recognition Program Essential Personnel
Accredited residency programs with Osteopathic Recognition
may have as many qualied osteopathic faculty as needed to
adequately supervise and teach their residents. However, no
program can have fewer than two osteopathically qualied
faculty members to oversee the Osteopathic Recognition
designated residents enrolled in the program. One of the two
can be the Director of Osteopathic Education (DOE).
Having a DOE and at least one other designated osteopathic faculty member is a core ACGME requirement for
Osteopathic Recognition.
Director ofOsteopathic Education
The Director of Osteopathic Education (DOE) must have
experience in education, administrative skills and, above all
else, requisite osteopathic expertise and experience that is
acceptable to the Osteopathic Recognition Committee. The
Director must be certied by an AOA specialty certifying
board [such as the American Osteopathic Board of Family
Physicians (AOBFP] or possess similar board certication as
approved by the Osteopathic Recognition Committee. The
DOE may also be the director of the residency program or be
another member of the residency program faculty.
The duties of the DOE include the following:
• Administer and maintain an educational environment
conducive to educating residents in OPP, OMT, and the
ACGME Core Competencies.
• Engage in professional development activity applicable to
their leadership responsibilities.
• Oversee and ensure the quality of osteopathic didactic
and clinical education at all clinical sites.
• Identify a faculty member at each site, if more than one
site, who possesses strong osteopathic knowledge and
manual skill, and designate them as a site director for des-
ignated osteopathic residents.

18
T. N. Told et al.
• Approve the selection of osteopathic faculty members.
• Meet all requirements of a faculty member.
• Prepare information and reports for submission as
required by the ACGME.
• Advise residents on osteopathic professional
development.
Osteopathic Faculty
The osteopathic faculty members assist the DOE in various
roles and work to ensure the success of designated residents
in gaining knowledge in OPP as well as developing and
applying their skills in OMT. Osteopathic faculty assist in
the development and delivery of the curriculum and participate in the evaluation of the resident’s OMT skills to ensure
that they can successfully apply their skills clinically after
graduation [7].
Osteopathic faculty members are expected to present at
national, regional, and state meetings and at local grand
rounds, publish, and provide leadership specic to
OPP. Resident-led didactics, journal clubs, and workshops
can count toward meeting these scholarly activity requirements. They are also required to have at least one activity
related to OMT skills.
Osteopathic faculty members must:
• Provide supervision during the performance of OMT to
promote patient safety.
• Evaluate designated osteopathic resident’s application of
OPP through direct observation.
• Be certied by an AOA specialty certifying board and/or
be a physician holding a medical degree other than DO
who has active board certication through an ABMS
member board and has completed an ACGME-accredited
residency program with Osteopathic Recognition in a
designated osteopathic position [7].
• Have a current medical license.
• Annually participate in structured faculty development
programs that include OPP.
• Participate in organized clinical discussions, rounds, journal clubs, and conferences for designated osteopathic
residents with specic integration of OPP and OMT.
• Engage with residents in order to foster and develop
scholarly activity in the form of research, quality initiatives, conference presentations, and reviews of scholarly
articles. Faculty collectively must produce at least two
scholarly activities per year over a 5-year period.
A faculty member’s board certication does not have to
be in the same specialty as the residency in which they
teach.
Osteopathic Recognition Resident Requirements
Each Osteopathic Recognition designated program must
have at least one designated osteopathic resident per program year averaged over 3years. Programs must designate
which residents will formally receive osteopathic education.
Programs have the responsibility to determine if the resident
has sufcient background and instruction in osteopathic philosophy, palpatory skills, and manipulative techniques to
succeed in the program. The Osteopathic Recognition designated program must have a written policy that clearly outlines the requirements for appointment into the program. The
policy must be presented to applicants before they enter a
designated osteopathic position.
Osteopathic Educational Program Core Competencies
The curriculum for designated osteopathic residents must integrate OPP and OMT into each of the six ACGME competencies. At rst glance, it may appear to be a daunting task to
integrate OPP into each of these competencies. The Osteopathic
Recognition Requirements state how OPP must be integrated
into the curriculum: www.acgme.org/osteopathicrecognition
There are examples available in the full text of the Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQ) document on the ACGME website:
https://www.acgme.org/globalassets/pfassets/programrequire
ments/801osteopathicrecognitionfaqs.pdf [4, 7].
Osteopathic Resident andFaculty Evaluation
Each program must provide an assessment of the resident’s
application of OPP and OMT manual skills in each of the
ACGME competencies for osteopathically designated residents. The residency’s Clinical Competency Committee
(CCC) or a sub-committee of the CCC must include the
Director of Osteopathic Education along with a designated
osteopathic faculty member as full members.
The CCC will review all osteopathic resident evaluations
semi-annually as they relate to Osteopathic Recognition
Milestones. The committee or sub-committee will advise the
Director of Osteopathic Education about resident progress,
the potential for advancement or need for remediation or
dismissal.
Formative longitudinal assessment of resident performance should be provided during clinical activities, including core clinical experiences and all other residency
educational activities and must include an evaluation of the
resident’s ability to integrate OPP into clinical experiences.
Direct observation during clinical activities and review of

3 American College ofOsteopathic Family Physicians: Osteopathic Postgraduate Medical Education inFamily Medicine
19
clinical assessments and treatment plans are expected during
an initial assessment period. The initial assessment period
should last no longer than 3months.
Osteopathic Recognition Milestones must be one of the
tools used to determine and ensure that the osteopathic residents are able to practice without supervision upon graduating from the residency program. The DOE will conduct a
nal evaluation to verify successful completion of the program. The DOE will verify the resident has the knowledge,
palpatory skills, interpersonal and communication skills, and
ability to apply OPP in clinical practice, in order to deliver
direct patient care without supervision. The nal record will
include the resident’s performance in applying OPP in each
of the ACGME competencies.
The Osteopathic Recognition faculty must be evaluated
annually by the DOE as to their performance. This evaluation should include written condential feedback from the
designated residents. These evaluations can occur after completion of rotations or other educational experiences.
Osteopathic Program Evaluation
At least annually the designated residents and faculty must
have the opportunity to evaluate the osteopathic components
of the residency program in writing in a totally condential
manner. The residency program must use ndings from these
evaluations to improve educational content, administration,
and delivery. The residency program must maintain a pass
rate of 80% or higher for their rst-time takers on certifying
examinations administered by the American Board of
Osteopathic Family Physicians (AOBFP).
It is expected that residents who enter a designated osteopathic position will complete the program in that designated
osteopathic position.
Osteopathic Family Medicine Initial Board
Certication andMaintenance
ofCertication
The previously mentioned agreement between the ACGME,
AOA and AACOM was intended to unify residency accreditation, but not board certication. The transition to a single
GME accreditation system did not combine the certication
authority and processes held by the AOA with the member
boards and subspecialty boards of the ABMS.The AOA did
not forfeit the certication authority for its 16 main certifying boards covering 27 primary specialties and 48 subspecialties within the Bureau of Osteopathic Specialists
(BOS). Board certication and re-certication pathways for
residents, fellows and practicing physicians in all specialties
of medicine and surgery remain a dual track process [8].
Certication Examinations forOsteopathic
Family Medicine [4]
The AOBFP certication examination has two parts: a written (cognitive) exam and an OMT performance (practical)
exam. Osteopathic family medicine board certication is
carried out by the American Osteopathic Board of Family
Physicians (ABOFP) which offers two primary certications
listed below:
• Family Medicine and Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment
(FM/OMT):
– This certication pathway is available to family medi-
cine residents who graduated from a Commission on
Osteopathic College Accreditation (COCA) accredited
college of osteopathic medicine, and who completed a
3-year ACGME-accredited family medicine
residency.
– To be eligible for the OMT Performance (practical)
Exam, a requirement for FM/OMT certication, nonDOs must have [1] completed the osteopathic educational requirements in an ACGME-accredited family
medicine program with Osteopathic Recognition; or
[2] have completed 50hours of training in Osteopathic
Manipulative Medicine as approved by AOBFP. https://
aoacbs.wpenginepowered.com/family- physicians/wpcontent/uploads/sites/25/50- Hour- OMT- Requirement.
pdf
• Family Medicine:
– This certication is available to those graduates of
COCA accredited colleges of osteopathic medicine
who have completed an ACGME approved family
medicine residency program with or without
Osteopathic Recognition who choose not to sit for the
OMT certication portion of the examination.
– This certication is available to physicians who gradu-
ated from a LCME-accredited medical school or a
medical school outside of the United States with a
valid ECFMG certicate who have completed an
ACGME approved family medicine residency program with or without Osteopathic Recognition.
All diplomates certied by AOBFP in Family Medicine
may return anytime at a later date to sit for the Osteopathic
Manipulative Treatment (OMT) certication examination.
American Osteopathic Board ofFamily
Physicians (AOBFP) In-Service Examinations [9]
The AOBFP In-Service Exam (ISE) is an examination produced and administered by the American College of
Osteopathic Family Physicians (ACOFP). It is a formative

20
T. N. Told et al.
examination that fullls ACGME requirements for annual
resident assessment. It includes an osteopathic component
that fullls the ACGME’s OPP/OMT formative assessment
requirement for programs with Osteopathic Recognition.
The exam is open to DO and MD residents in ACGMEaccredited programs with or without Osteopathic
Recognition. Sitting for two In-Service examinations in the
rst and/or second years of residency training fullls a
requirement for the resident to qualify for participation in the
Early Entry Initial Certication (EEIC) pathway.
Early Entry Initial Certication (EEIC)
Pathway [10]
The EEIC gives the resident an opportunity to take a condensed certication examination in January of their third year
of residency instead of taking the traditional board examination in April of their nal year of residency. The January
EEIC examination consists of 175 multiple-choice questions
compared to 275 multiple-choice questions in the traditional
examination. While the rst two ISE exams are formative, the
EEIC examination is summative. This pathway was created
as an incentive for residents to take the AOBFP examination.
Board certication is conferred when the AOA and
AOBFP receive the “Residency Complete” attestation from
the residency program and the resident receives a passing
mark on the EEIC examination.
One distinct advantage of the EEIC pathway is that in the
event of a failure, the resident has the opportunity to take the
traditional examination in April before the end of the
residency.
Table 3.1 explains the board certication examination
schedule.
Table 3.1 Approximate times of scheduled board certication examinations [11]
Examination type Approximate times of examinations
EEIC Examination Winter, usually January via the remote
proctored platform. Candidates will take the
exam from the convenience of their home or
ofce with the security of a remote proctor.
OMT Performance
Examination
Initial
Certication
Examinations
Given in conjunction with the ACOFP Annual
Convention and Scientic Seminar in March or
April.
The exam is offered once in the spring and once
in the fall via the remote proctored platform.
Candidates will take the exam from the
convenience of their home or ofce with the
security of a remote proctor.
ACOFP Education andResearch Foundation
Initial Certication Fund [12]
The fund was established to help cover the cost of the cognitive examination and practical examination fees and travel
costs for initial certication. The ACOFP Education and
Research Foundation established this grant program to cover
costs incurred during the resident’s initial certication. To be
eligible, the resident must be a member of the ACOFP, and
sit for the AOBFP written (cognitive) exam and the OMT
performance (practical) exam. Applicants for either the EEIC
pathway or the traditional initial certication pathway are
encouraged to apply. To qualify for the grant, candidates
must not be eligible to receive support from their residency
program sufcient to cover the cost of the AOBFP examination plus travel. Proof of board fee and travel cost payment
and a completed travel expense report and necessary tax
information are required.
Maintenance ofOsteopathic Family
Medicine Certication andOsteopathic
Continuous Certication (OCC) [13]
The four components to maintaining Osteopathic Family
Medicine certication for practicing physicians are explained
in Table3.2.
Table 3.2 Components of osteopathic continuous certication
Component number Description of component
Component 1 (Active
Licensure)
Component 2 (Lifelong
Learning)
Component 3 (Cognitive
Assessment)
Component 4 (Practice
Performance Assessment)
A candidate/diplomat must hold a
valid, active license to practice
medicine in a US state,
commonwealth, District of Columbia
or USTerritory or Canada. Those
physicians holding an active license (or
registration) to practice medicine
outside the United States may be
considered for OCC on a case-by-case
basis.
Physicians are required to earn
120hours of CME every 3years. 30
credits must be AOA Category 1A, an
additional 30 credits can be either AOA
Category 1A or 1B, and the remaining
60 required credits are exible (1A,
1B, 2A, 2B).
Diplomate status requires participation
in the AOBFP Longitudinal
Assessment program.
Complete one practice performance
activity every 3years.
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
