To determine the views of family medicine (FM) program directors, third-year program coordinators, and residents on the factors affecting demand and allocation of postgraduate year 3 (PGY3) positions and the effects of these programs on the professional activities of program graduates.
Cross-sectional surveys and key informant interviews.
Ontario (FM residents) and across Canada (program directors) in 2006.
All FM residents in Ontario and all core program directors and PGY3 program coordinators nationally were eligible to participate in the surveys. Eighteen key informant interviews were conducted, all in Ontario. Interviewees included all FM program directors, selected PGY3 program coordinators, residents, and other community stakeholders.
Resident surveys were Web-based; invitations to participate were delivered by FM programs via e-mail lists. The program director and coordinator surveys were postal surveys. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed, and the authors coded the interviews for themes.
Response rates for the surveys were 34% to 39% for residents and 78% for program directors and coordinators. Respondents agreed that programs should include flexible training options of varied duration. Demand for training is determined more by resident need than community or health system factors, and is either increasing or stable. Overall, respondents believed that approximately one-third of core program graduates should have the opportunity for PGY3 training. They thought re-entry from practice should be permitted, but mandatory return-of-service agreements were not desired. Program allocation and resident selection is a complex process with resident merit playing an important role. Respondents expected PGY3 graduates to practise differently than PGY2 graduates and to provide improved quality of care in their fields. They also thought that PGY3 graduates might play larger roles in leadership and teaching than core program graduates.
It is likely that PGY3 programs will continue to grow and form an increasingly important part of the FM training system in Canada. Flexible programs that can adapt to changing educational, health system, and community needs are essential. Training programs and national and provincial colleges of FM will also need to ensure that these physicians are provided with opportunities to maintain their links with the rest of the FM community.
Notes
Cites: Can Fam Physician. 2004 May;50:687-9, 693-515171666
Cites: Can Fam Physician. 2004 Sep;50:120915508362
Cites: Can Fam Physician. 2004 Sep;50:1209-1015508363
Cites: Can Fam Physician. 2004 Sep;50:1210-115508365
Cites: Can Fam Physician. 1994 Feb;40:273-88080510
Cites: CMAJ. 1995 Nov 15;153(10):1447-527585371
Cites: CMAJ. 2003 Jun 10;168(12):1548-912796334
Cites: Can J Rural Med. 2005 Fall;10(4):26816356390
Cites: Can Fam Physician. 2005 Apr;51:538-916926929
Cites: Can Fam Physician. 1999 Oct;45:2416-22, 2426-3210540701
Cites: Can Fam Physician. 1999 Nov;45:2698-700, 2703-4, 2717-2110587779
Cites: Can Fam Physician. 1999 Jan;45:88-9110889861
Cites: CMAJ. 2002 Oct 15;167(8):869-7012406944
Cites: Can Fam Physician. 2004 Oct;50:135515526867