Research ArticleOriginal Research

Harmonizing the Tripartite Mission in Academic Family Medicine: A Longitudinal Case Example

C. J. Peek, Michele Allen, Katie A. Loth, Peter G. Harper, Casey Martin, James T. Pacala, Angela Buffington and Jerica M. Berge
The Annals of Family Medicine May 2024, 22 (3) 237-243; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.3108

Abstract

Academic practices and departments are defined by a tripartite mission of care, education, and research, conceived as being mutually reinforcing. But in practice, academic faculty have often experienced these 3 missions as competing rather than complementary priorities. This siloed approach has interfered with innovation as a learning health system in which the tripartite missions reinforce each other in practical ways. This paper presents a longitudinal case example of harmonizing academic missions in a large family medicine department so that missions and people interact in mutually beneficial ways to create value for patients, learners, and faculty. We describe specific experiences, implementation, and examples of harmonizing missions as a feasible strategy and culture. “Harmonized” means that no one mission subordinates or drives out the others; each mission informs and strengthens the others (quickly in practice) while faculty experience the triparate mission as a coherent whole faculty job. Because an academic department is a complex system of work and relationships, concepts for leading a complex adaptive system were employed: (1) a “good enough” vision, (2) frequent and productive interactions, and (3) a few simple rules. These helped people harmonize their work without telling them exactly what to do, when, and how. Our goal here is to highlight concrete examples of harmonizing missions as a feasible operating method, suggesting ways it builds a foundation for a learning health system and potentially improving faculty well-being.

Key words:

INTRODUCTION

Academic practices and departments are defined by a tripartite mission of care, education, and research, conceived as being mutually reinforcing. But in practice, carrying out this tripartite mission is a challenge, with missions often experienced as separate or competing. In this paper we present a longitudinal case example of harmonizing academic missions in a large family medicine department such that missions and people interact in mutually beneficial ways to create value for patients, learners, and faculty. This suggests harmonizing the academic missions is a feasible, productive strategy that results in a departmental culture shift.

Context and Literature

Academic practices and departments, like all health care organizations, experience increasing pressures to meet the Triple Aim of care experience, population health, and affordability.1-3 This brings opportunities to academic health centers, with their tripartite mission of care, education,4 and research.5-7 For example, Wartman in 2008 described “virtuous cycles” whereby the missions interact in ways that make each other better.8 In 2013, Magill and Baxley described virtuous cycles in the patient-centered medical home where the missions are mutually reinforcing rather than competing priorities and values.9 Others point out that academic departments with their tripartite mission are positioned to create, apply, and teach new ways of delivering care where the target is not only improved clinical care but enabling the missions to reinforce each other10 in carrying out one underlying purpose—population health11,12—rather than 3 parallel purposes.13

Others observe that making best use of the tripartite mission aligns with a learning health system approach “…in which internal data and experience are systematically integrated with external evidence, and that knowledge is put into practice…”14,15 that can be done in academic health systems16,17 including in clinician education.18 A framework of specific organizational and relational features to build within academic centers to achieve those virtuous circles in the context of learning health systems was recently proposed.19

Much of this same literature also points at significant challenges in achieving such virtuous circles. A tripartite mission in silos that leads to tensions and reduced vitality when missions become disjointed20 is problematic given growing concern about faculty well-being21-23 and the “Quadruple Aim.”24 Literature recommends active involvement in the life of the academic institution and its disciplines; faculty curious, engaged, and pursuing new interests—with organizational practices that support longitudinal investment in careers.20,25 But a need exists for specific examples of cultural and operating strategies to bring this about.

One Department’s Experience With Disharmony Across Missions

The Department of Family Medicine and Community Health26 at the University of Minnesota Medical School has 94 core faculty, 7 residency programs that produced 53 graduates in 2022, 4 fellowship programs, a large role in medical student education, a research enterprise Blue Ridge ranked #1 for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding among family medicine departments,27 and programs in sports medicine, health disparities, healthy eating and activity across the lifespan, and sexual and gender health.

Historically, our faculty had experienced care, education, and research missions as siloed, with ongoing tension as they were pulled in different directions by competing tasks and interests. Learners began to see this tension as inherent in academic medicine. This is illustrated by a “before harmonization” personal vignette from co-author P.G.H. who served as medical director for 4 family medicine residency clinics:

It was a lonely place. There were many evaluations and educational needs within the clinical mission. But when asking for assistance from the research area, the usual advice was to go get a grant. Likewise, researchers wanted to get into clinics for projects that were often not clinic priorities and brought chaos to operations. Building educational curricula was local to each residency—and challenging to tie together with clinic operations across the residencies…

A Shared Vision of “Harmonized”

The department responded to this tension by creating a shared vision of harmonized missions. Carrying out projects and innovations required improving performance of the whole, while reducing internal friction between the missions and the systems, people, and priorities that accomplish them. This was to be harmonized transformation—simultaneous and integrated change across the whole operation, not sequential and independent adjustments mission by mission.28

Being harmonized was the centerpiece of the department’s 2013 vision that made a visible commitment to address competing or misaligned missions.29

“To connect the University mission of discovery, learning, and public service to our communities by harmonizing practice, education, and research to improve individual, family, and community health.”

“Harmonized” means:

  1. No one mission subordinates the others.

  2. Each mission informs and strengthens the others (quickly and on the ground).

  3. Changes in one mission are translated into corresponding changes in the others.

  4. Faculty experience the work of the triparate mission as one coherent job, not as competing priorities, and derive greater satisfaction and joy of practice.

Just as we realized years ago that we need whole person care, we saw the need for whole faculty jobs where the missions are experienced as mutually reinforcing—virtuous cycles9; one satisfying academic life rather than competing priorities and values.

THE CHALLENGE TO HARMONIZE THE MISSIONS

One aspect of our strategy was to expect the department as a whole to harmonize missions, but not to expect every individual faculty to be excellent in all 3,12 even though many will be good at more than 1. That is, help everyone who labors deep within the work of each mission experience their work as 1 dimension of a larger and personally useful whole—even as they take satisfaction in their immediate work and colleagues. People are interconnected through different roles, locations, divisional affiliations, and peer groups wearing different badges from different entities with different strategic plans. Such a system of work and relationships can be characterized as a complex adaptive system (CAS) where many people work in their own loosely linked ways toward the same general goals, with practical limits to the effectiveness of central direction.30,31

Harmonizing the Missions in a Complex Adaptive System

Academic departments are complex, massively interconnected organizations, in part because of their tripartite mission. It was not seen as practical or effective to establish a centralized project management plan to govern it all. Instead, we needed a way to help people with different jobs in different areas harmonize their work over time without telling them exactly what to do, when, and how.28 This called for leading the department as a complex adaptive system. Table 1 describes the meaning of 3 elements of CAS we employed, based on our understanding of the literature.32,33

View this table:
Table 1.

Complex Adaptive System Elements Employed

These 3 CAS elements became our “how.” A metaphor from 2013: A department jazz ensemble of different sections playing the same music, not separate bands playing their own different music. We play jazz, because we improvise harmoniously on our tripartite mission, which is the “piece” that we are playing together. More specifically:

A “Good Enough” Vision

The 2013 vision for and definition of “harmonized” provided shared language from which we oriented and engaged faculty. This defined cultural shift became the “good enough” vision for change and was reinforced by widely expressed frustration with disharmony across missions.

Routine and Productive Interactions Between People Across Missions

We brought people and their powers together from the different missions with central and local roles to act together on the good enough vision. This became the productive interaction “how” of harmonization:

Central: We created a Harmonization Group to oversee operationalizing the 2013 vision comprised of vice chairs for care, education, and research (with their administrative partners), a residency director, the department administrator, and a project manager. It looked for opportunities to harmonize projects and innovations, balance priorities, and anticipate what will need to be harmonized—with steps which they all then carry out together.

Local: We built up local habits of looking at all 3 missions while doing work in any of them. For example, a clinic operations group would ask how an adjusted clinical process can be made to improve education and what evaluation questions arise from a new clinical or educational process.

Simple Rules for Harmonizing Missions

These rules have guided the action of people in their own spheres of influence; are easy to understand, obviously linked to the harmonized vision, and readily applicable across situations. Table 2 shows the simple rules that have guided our experience to date.

View this table:
Table 2.

Simple Rules for Harmonizing Missions in a Department

Examples of Applications of the Simple Rules

Local clinics and/or the department harmonization group facilitated the following examples of interwoven care, education, and research (Tables 3-6).

View this table:
Table 3.

An Innovation Driven by Clinical Care; Spread to Education and Research

View this table:
Table 4.

An Innovation Driven by Research; Spread to Care and Education

View this table:
Table 5.

An Innovation Driven by Education; Spread to Care and Research

View this table:
Table 6.

Pillars of EDI Action in a Family Medicine Department

Simple Rule A: Translate an Innovation Spontaneously Arising in Any Mission Area to All Mission Areas

Innovations that arose in our residency programs are shown in Tables 3-5, each driven by one of the missions, but quickly and intentionally spread to the others.

Co-author C.M. contributed this vignette on his harmonization experience:

When I first pondered tenets of Clinic First (“Clinic as Curriculum”) as a residency program director, I was attracted to predictable scheduling—trainees with set days in clinic rather than variability driven by specialty rotations. I knew I had to balance clinic availability with rotation learning while improving clinic operations, continuity, and clinician and patient satisfaction. I could have spent years scheming the details by myself without generating confidence or momentum. Or I could have just tried something without bothering to evaluate it in a scholarly way.

Because the department sees practical value in harmonizing missions, I was able to meet regularly with a team of researchers, educators, clinicians, and administrators with a track record of harmonizing the missions. We looked at the inherent balances to strike, designed and tested changes, and developed metrics for effects on care and the clinic experience for clinicians and patients—with an eye to publishing what we found.

Once a resident “set schedule” intervention was implemented, the team gave me the wherewithal to see the project through to positive results fit to bring to NAPCRG.48 The sense of accomplishment for my program and for family medicine has re-energized me mid-career. Research is now “something I do” and I am thankful for department habits of harmonization that enabled this.

Simple Rule B. Design Projects as Tri-Mission Efforts From the Very Start

Our faculty wanted to take the whole department on a developmental path to improve justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI) which began in 2019 and was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic and killing of George Floyd in our own city. This was to be an inclusive means to an inclusive end; a participatory journey to take place across all missions simultaneously.

This scope of work appeared as pillars of EDI (also referred to as DEI) action in a family medicine department (Table 6), with “north star” goals tailored to each pillar.49 Workgroups of volunteers dispersed across all the missions, harnessing the energy distributed evenly across all.

Simple Rule C. When Coping With Crisis, Use Harmonization—Don’t Back Off on It

Habits of harmonization increased our coping capacity rather than being a luxury to suspend.

The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated drastic change in education and research as priorities suddenly shifted to new ways to provide clinical care. Usual learning experiences were disrupted, and some research studies temporarily shut down. But soon after the initial surge, habits of harmonization established before the crisis helped hold us together. For example, we rapidly adjusted residency education, including online COVID-19 care, with measurement and evaluation that was published50 and presented.51 Over 20 other COVID-19–related research projects were carried out. Our department co-facilitated a weekly COVID-19 research consultation with the Minnesota Academy of Family Physicians, patterned after the Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) consultation model.52

These experiences helped us see that harmonization processes (and habits) helped keep all missions and talents engaged during a time of great strain for all, keeping people together and thriving to the extent possible.

Simple Rule D. Think “Harmonize” When Groups Become Distant, Siloed, or Estranged

People naturally focus on their own distinctive work, but distance and misunderstanding of each other’s motivations reduced satisfaction or vitality. For example, our researchers and clinicians were often isolated in different locations, roles, and priorities—and sometimes were in uneasy relationship. The department created opportunities to help all faculty conduct and publish scholarly work in a way that was feasible and gratifying. Examples:

An online research application and coaching portal asks guiding questions of faculty and learners to help improve questions, designs, practicality in clinic settings, and likelihood of publication—while matching scholarship interests across clinics to enable collaborative studies of higher quality and impact. The portal takes “binocular view” of research quality coupled with clinic relevance and feasibility.53

Clinic-research partnerships brought research protocols into daily operations and helped clinicians apply study results to their work. In one example, clinics and clinicians enthusiastically joined a multisite community-engaged federal study on cervical cancer screening disparities in an immigrant population.54 Researchers were welcomed into this clinical milieu as valued experts who appreciated the challenges of running clinics and residencies while doing research.

Simple Rule E. Give Department Performance Feedback Integrated Across Missions, Not in Isolation

Performance feedback is typically done to encourage or reward individuals, programs, or divisions. But we created a multimission department dashboard regularly distributed to all as a clear signal on how we are doing together and compared with last time. People could take satisfaction (or not) in the spirit of formative feedback. This dashboard, a colorful PDF suitable for internal and external use, is issued 3 times per year, calling out in 1 place results across care, education, and research, plus cross-cutting activities: JEDI, community engagement/advocacy, philanthropy, and well-being. Each dashboard concludes by saluting a current example of harmonization.

Future Horizons

Harmonization as a general strategy remains an important investment for our future. But we want to increase its reach and depth:

  1. Reach beyond the tripartite mission. In recent years the department has invested in activities and leadership that cut across and influence how the 3 traditional missions are carried out. Specifically, community engagement and advocacy to bring care, education, and research into consistent and meaningful working relationship with served communities—their own leaders, priorities, assets, and population health goals. Justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion makes our operations more equitable—for our patients, learners, research enterprise, and workforce.49 In a future world, JEDI and community engagement will be harmonized with the tripartite mission as standard practice. But at this point in history and in our own development, explicit leadership is needed.

  2. Extend reach to all faculty. We want it to be feasible and gratifying for all faculty to participate in the clinical, educational, and scholarly dimensions of their work—so that no one has to feel isolated in their own work, and everyone (who wishes to) can see a path to larger participation or promotion. It will take people in all roles and levels to recognize the opportunities, extend the processes, and create examples and culture shifts in their own spheres. This involves changing habits of leadership or culture that enable harmonization to take place and be sustained, many of which are described in the Supplemental Appendix and earlier work.28

  3. Explore effects of a better harmonized working life on well-being and vitality. Harmonizing missions was not originally intended to improve faculty vitality. But experience has suggested it may help. For example, animated partnerships described in earlier examples appear to amplify excitement and participation. We intend to evaluate perceptions that harmonization contributes to excitement and vitality. As said earlier, just as we need “whole person care” for patients, we also believe we need “whole faculty jobs” for ourselves. An example is the “after harmonization” part of the medical director vignette shared early in the paper by co-author P.G.H.: …Then it began to change. A research colleague offered to help me evaluate a clinical initiative. This department support allowed me to simply work with my colleague rather than writing a grant. This was lifeblood for us to study our clinical work. Later when harmonization was more robust, we organized a meeting to align a chronic pain care initiative with research and education across clinics. And this felt big. It felt complete. It felt important. We felt proud. This was harmonization. I was no longer alone.

CONCLUSION

Harmonization has become a feasible leadership and operating approach to make the most of our academic tripartite mission. Our academic missions have increasingly been experienced as mutually beneficial rather than mainly as parallel and competing priorities, with significant expansion of scholarly output across all faculty. Still a work in progress, harmonization is an example of creating a learning health system in an academic department—and hopefully an example improving clinician well-being.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge early shapers of this work: Macaran Baird, Susie Nanney, Liz Miller, Melissa Stevens, Kristi Van Riper, and Wendy Nickerson. We also acknowledge recent contributors such as Denise Windenberg, Jill Bengston, Pita Adam, Derek Hersch and others in the department Research Services Hub who implemented examples or commented on this evolving manuscript. The authors are indebted to these and many others who have formed the basis for this work over the past decade.

Footnotes

  • Conflicts of interest: authors report none.

  • Read or post commentaries in response to this article.

  • Funding support: This manuscript was written as part of each of our individual department leadership roles. Some of the project examples cited had their own narrow grant funding, but the overall work described here was done by department faculty as part of their jobs.

  • Previous presentations: Presentations include “What is harmonized? Transformation in an academic department,” NAPCRG Annual Meeting, November 19, 2017, Montreal, Canada; “Building scholarship capacity across all faculty,” ADFM Annual Meeting, February 23, 2018, Washington, DC; “Finding the time and money for widespread scholarship,” NAPCRG Annual Meeting, November 12, 2018, Chicago, Illinois; “Building scholarship capacity,” NAPCRG Annual Meeting, November 12, 2019, Toronto, Canada; “Bringing researchers and clinicians together via coaching portal,” NAPCRG Annual Meeting, November 21, 2020, virtual.

  • Supplemental materials

  • Received for publication April 27, 2023.
  • Revision received December 11, 2023.
  • Accepted for publication January 16, 2024.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Berwick DM,
    2. Nolan TW,
    3. Whittington J.
    The triple aim: care, health, and cost. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(3):759-769. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.27.3.759
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.
    1. Baird MA.
    Primary care in the age of reform-not a time for complacency. Fam Med. 2014;46(1):7-10.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
    . Implementing High-Quality Primary Care: Rebuilding the Foundation of Health Care. National Academies Press; 2021.
  4. 4.↵
    Family medicine program requirements, FAQs, and applications. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Published Jul 2022. https://www.acgme.org/specialties/family-medicine/program-requirements-and-faqs-and-applications/
  5. 5.↵
    1. Peek CJ,
    2. Glasgow R,
    3. Stange K,
    4. Klesges L,
    5. Purcell EP,
    6. Kessler R.
    The 5 R’s: an emerging bold standard for conducting relevant research in a changing world. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12(5):447-455. doi:10.1370/afm.1688
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.
    1. Gilfoyle M,
    2. MacFarlane A,
    3. Salsberg J.
    Conceptualising, operationalising and measuring trust in participatory health research networks: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2020;10(10):e038840. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038840
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Hudson, MF.
    Short- and long-term strategies for navigating research-ambivalent organizational cultures besetting embedded researchers. Learn Health Sys. 2022;e10329. doi:10.1002/lrh2.10329
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    1. Wartman SA.
    Toward a virtuous cycle: the changing face of academic health centers. Acad Med. 2008;83(9):797-799. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e318181cf8c
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Magill MK,
    2. Baxley E.
    Virtuous cycles: patient care, education, and scholarship in the patient-centered medical home. Fam Med. 2013;45(4):235-239.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Gonzalo JD,
    2. Dekhtyar M,
    3. Caverzagie KJ, et al.
    The triple helix of clinical, research, and education missions in academic health centers: a qualitative study of diverse stakeholder perspectives. Learn Health Syst. 2020;5(4):e10250. doi:10.1002/lrh2.10250
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    1. Gourevitch MN.
    Population health and the academic medical center: the time is right. Acad Med. 2014;89(4):544-549. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000171
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Ramsey PG,
    2. Miller ED.
    A single mission for academic medicine: improving health. JAMA. 2009;301(14):1475-1476. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.472
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Roles of Academic Health Centers in the 21st Century
    . Academic Health Centers: Leading Change in the 21st Century. National Academies Press; 2004.
  14. 14.↵
    About learning health systems. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. https://www.ahrq.gov/learning-health-systems/about.html
  15. 15.↵
    1. Platt JE,
    2. Raj M,
    3. Wienroth M.
    An analysis of the learning health system in its first decade in practice: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(3):e17026. doi:10.2196/17026
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Collard HR,
    2. Grumbach K.
    A call to improve health by achieving the learning health care system. Acad Med. 2023;98(1):29-35. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000004949
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. Anderson JL,
    2. Mugavero MJ,
    3. Ivankova NV, et al.
    Adapting an interdisciplinary learning health system framework for academic health centers: a scoping review. Acad Med. 2022; 97(10):1564-1572. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000004712
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    1. Wlodarczyk S,
    2. Dhaliwal G.
    The learning sciences meet the learning health system. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(7):e2223113. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.23113
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    1. Rosenthal GE,
    2. McClain DA,
    3. High KP, et al.
    The academic learning health system: a framework for integrating the multiple missions of academic medical centers. Acad Med. 2023; 98(9):1002-1007. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000005259
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  20. 20.↵
    1. Cole T,
    2. Goodrich TJ
    1. McDaniel S,
    2. Bogdewic S,
    3. Holloway R,
    4. Hepworth J.
    The architecture of alignment: Leadership and the psychological health of faculty. In: Faculty Health in Academic Medicine. Cole T, Goodrich TJ, eds. Springer Science & Business Media; 2009.
  21. 21.↵
    1. Del Carmen MG,
    2. Herman J,
    3. Rao S, et al.
    Trends and factors associated with physician burnout at a multispecialty academic faculty practice organization. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(3):e190554. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.0554
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.
    1. Shanafelt TD,
    2. Boone S,
    3. Tan L, et al.
    Burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance among US physicians relative to the general US population. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(18):1377-1385. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.3199
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Wallace JE,
    2. Lemaire JB,
    3. Ghali WA.
    Physician wellness: a missing quality indicator. Lancet. 2009;374(9702):1714-1721. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61424-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Bodenheimer T,
    2. Sinsky C.
    From triple to quadruple aim: care of the patient requires care of the provider. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12(6):573-576. doi:10.1370/afm.1713
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Shah DT,
    2. Williams VN,
    3. Thorndyke LE, et al.
    Restoring faculty vitality in academic medicine when burnout threatens. Acad Med. 2018;93(7):979-984. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000002013
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  26. 26.↵
    1. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota Medical School
    . Accessed Mar 15, 2021.
  27. 27.↵
    1. Roskosdi R Jr.,
    2. Parslow TG
    , eds. BRIMR Raankings of NIH funding in 2023. Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research. https://brimr.org/brimr-rankings-of-nih-funding-in-2023/
  28. 28.↵
    1. Berge JM,
    2. Peek CJ,
    3. Pacala JT, et al.
    Expanding family medicine research and scholarship to all faculty: the minnesota model for harmonizing clinical care, education, and research missions. JABFM. 2021;34(5):1055-1065. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2021.05.210035
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. 29.↵
    1. University of Minnesota
    . University of Minnesota Medical School. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health. About our department. 2013. https://med.umn.edu/familymedicine/about
  30. 30.↵
    1. Obolensky N.
    Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Routledge; 2016.
  31. 31.↵
    1. Brown AM.
    Emergent Strategy: Shaping Change, Changing Worlds. AK Press: 2017.
  32. 32.↵
    1. Plsek PE,
    2. Greenhalgh T.
    Complexity science: the challenge of complexity in health care. BMJ. 2001;323(7313):625-628. doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7313.625
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Zimmerman B,
    2. Lindberg C,
    3. Plsek P.
    Edgeware: Insights From Complexity Science for Healthcare Leaders. VHA Incorporated; 2008.
  34. 34.
    1. Justesen K,
    2. A Hooker S,
    3. Sherman MD,
    4. Lonergan-Cullum M,
    5. Nissly T,
    6. Levy R.
    Predictors of family medicine patient retention in opioid medication-assisted treatment. J Am Board Fam Med. 2020;33(6):848-857. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2020.06.200086
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.
    1. Hooker SA,
    2. Sherman MD,
    3. Lonergan-Cullum M, et al.
    Mental health and psychosocial needs of patients being treated for opioid use disorder in a primary care residency clinic. J Prim Care Community Health. 2020;11:215013272093 2017. doi:10.1177/2150132720932017
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. 36.
    1. Hooker SA,
    2. Lonergan-Cullum M,
    3. Levy R,
    4. Nissly T,
    5. Sherman MD.
    Longitudinal assessment of mental health and well-being in patients being treated with medications for opioid use disorder in primary care. Addict Behav Rep. 2021; 13:100348. doi:10.1016/j.abrep.2021.100348
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. 37.
    1. Hooker SA,
    2. Sherman MD,
    3. Lonergan-Cullum M,
    4. Nissly T,
    5. Levy R.
    What is success in treatment for opioid use disorder? Perspectives of physicians and patients in primary care settings. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2022;141:108804. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2022.108804
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. 38.
    1. Danner C,
    2. Freeman K,
    3. Friedrichsen S,
    4. Brandenburg D.
    Health behaviors and goal setting among Karen youth. Int J Migr Health Soc Care. 2019;15(4):320-331. doi:10.1108/IJMHSC-08-2018-0050
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.
    1. Berge JM,
    2. Trump L,
    3. Trudeau S, et al.
    Integrated care clinic: creating enhanced clinical pathways for integrated behavioral health care in a family medicine residency clinic serving a low-income, minority population. Fam Syst Health. 2017;35(3):283-294. doi:10.1037/fsh0000285
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. 40.
    1. Gupta R,
    2. Dube K,
    3. Bodenheimer T.
    The road to excellence for primary care resident teaching clinics. Acad Med. 2016;91(4):458-461. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000001100
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. 41.
    1. Gupta R,
    2. Barnes K,
    3. Bodenheimer T.
    Clinic first: 6 actions to transform ambulatory residency training. J Grad Med Educ. 2016;8(4):500-503. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-15-00398.1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  42. 42.
    1. Bodenheimer T,
    2. Gupta R,
    3. Dube K, et al.
    High-functioning primary care residency clinics: building blocks for providing excellent care and training. Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Published 2016. Accessed Feb 19, 2022. https://store.aamc.org/downloadable/download/sample/sample_id/126/
  43. 43.
    1. Barnes K,
    2. Morris CG.
    Clinic first: Prioritizing primary care outpatient training for family medicine residents at Group Health Cooperative. J Gen Intern Med. 2015-60;30(10):1557-1560. doi:10.1007/s11606-015-3272-z
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. 44.
    1. Adam P,
    2. Hersch D,
    3. Peek CJ.
    Implementing clinic first principles across four family medicine residency clinics. Acad Med. 2022;97(2):233-238. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000004180
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. 45.
    1. Hersch D,
    2. Klemenhagen K,
    3. Martin C,
    4. Berg B,
    5. Adam P.
    Impact of set-day clinic on physician continuity in a family medicine residency clinic. Fam Med. 2023; 55(9):612-615. doi:10.22454/FamMed.2023.329731
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  46. 46.
    1. Martin C,
    2. Hersch D,
    3. Adam P.
    Impact of fixed-day physician clinic shifts on physician-patient continuity in a family medicine residency. Poster presentation at the 50th NAPCRG annual conference; November 21, 2022; Phoenix, Arizona. https://napcrg.org/conferences/2012/sessions/3622
  47. 47.
    1. Peek CJ,
    2. Allen M,
    3. Pacala JT,
    4. Nickerson W,
    5. Westby A.
    Coming together in action for equity, diversity, and inclusion. Fam Med. 2021;53(9):786-795. doi:10.22454/FamMed.2021
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Nair S,
    2. Parker-Featherstone E,
    3. Westby A.
    Creating a customized EDI metrics framework. Presented at Association of Departments of Family Medicine (ADFM) Annual Meeting; February 23, 2023; Atlanta, Georgia.
  49. 49.↵
    1. Nair S,
    2. Rodriguez JE,
    3. Elwood S,
    4. Ramanathan A,
    5. Vail B,
    6. Peek CJ,
    7. Wilson E,
    8. Stulberg D,
    9. Rundell K.
    Departmental metrics to guide equity, diversity, and inclusion for academic family medicine departments. Fam Med. Published 16 Apr 2024. doi:10.22454/FamMed.2024.865619
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  50. 50.↵
    1. Thompson JA,
    2. Hersch D,
    3. Miner MH,
    4. Melnik TE,
    5. Adam P.
    Remote patient monitoring for COVID-19: a retrospective study on health care utilization. Telemed J E Health. 2023;29(8):1179-1185. doi:10.1089/tmj.2022.0299
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  51. 51.↵
    1. Shokar N,
    2. Weidner A,
    3. Seehusen D,
    4. Berge JM,
    5. Stacey S.
    Strategies for addressing research challenges and opportunities in the midst of a global pandemic: a BRC workshop. Presented at the 48th NAPCRG Annual Conference; November 20-24, 2020; virtual. https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:b93cd067-e490-4080-9286-dbfd6ac8690a
  52. 52.↵
    1. Costello A,
    2. Daoud AK,
    3. Piggott C,
    4. Earnest M.
    A novel adaptation to the extension for community healthcare outcomes (ECHO) model. Ann Fam Med. 2021; 19(4):371. doi:10.1370/afm.2691
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    1. Windenburg D,
    2. Berge J,
    3. Peek CJ,
    4. Bengtson J.
    All faculty scholarship: Harmonizing researchers and clinicians through online technology. Presented at the 48th NAPCRG Annual Conference; November 21, 2020; virtual.
  54. 54.↵
    1. Pratt R,
    2. Ghebre R,
    3. Ramer T,
    4. Yohe S,
    5. Weiner B,
    6. Szpiro A.
    Reducing cervical cancer screening disparities in somali immigrant women through a primary case-based hpv self-sampling intervention. ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05453006
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Get Permissions

Jump to section

Subjects

Keywords