Factors influencing focused practice: A qualitative study of resident and early-career family physician practice choices

Study design and population

We report on a subset of the qualitative interview data collected through a larger mixed methods study examining factors contributing to practice intentions and choices among resident and early-career FPs across British Columbia, Ontario, and Nova Scotia.[15]

We recruited resident and early-career FPs for the qualitative arm of this larger mixed methods study through family medicine residency programs, social media, research conferences, and selected provincial medical associations.

Interested participants completed an online screening survey that captured demographic information and practice characteristics (see Appendix 1). We used purposeful sampling to maximize variation across self-identified gender, marital status, dependents, training location, years of training, years in practice, scope of practice, and practice models in each province. Selected individuals were then invited to participate in a 60-minute interview. We provided participants with study information and an honorarium.

We interviewed 31 of 32 resident FPs and 63 of 69 early-career FPs who had been invited to participate in the larger mixed methods study. Reasons for nonparticipation included scheduling conflicts (n=2), no response (n=4), or withdrawal with no reason provided (n=1). The study received ethics approval in all three provinces.

Context for this paper

The sample used in this paper consists of 22 resident FPs and 38 early-career FPs who: i) self-identified in the screening survey as intending to practice or currently practicing within a focused area, and/or ii) described focused practice elements in their overall practice during the interview. We considered resident and early-career FPs to have a focused practice, in whole or in part, if a component of their intended or current practice was narrowed or specialized in scope (e.g., addictions medicine, emergency medicine) and they did not intend to or currently deliver any routine comprehensive family medicine care to patients in that part of their practice. We considered resident and early-career FPs to be engaging in comprehensive family medicine practice when they described providing clinic-based, first-contact, longitudinal, comprehensive, and coordinated services to a defined group of patients to address the majority of their health care needs.[16, 17] Our definition of comprehensive family medicine practice included providing comprehensive care for a particular population (e.g., refugees) or comprehensive care omitting obstetrics/prenatal care.

Data collection

One research analyst (ER, LJ, MM) per province conducted one-on-one, semi-structured, in-depth interviews. Each research analyst was trained in qualitative interviewing. Telephone interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide specific to each subgroup (see Appendix 2). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Research analysts recorded their reflections and interview summaries after each interview. Participant recruitment occurred iteratively until no new themes were identified in interviews.

Data analysis

We used iterative, inductive thematic analysis.[18] For the qualitative arm of the larger mixed methods study, three research analysts (ER, LJ, MM) with experience in qualitative analysis generated initial resident and early-career FP codebooks through inductive coding of one resident and one early-career FP interview.[19] Codebooks were then refined through application to a subset of transcripts with guidance from the senior author (AG). The research analysts used the final codebooks to code transcripts from their respective provinces in NVivo 12[20]. Codebooks were iteratively amended to incorporate emerging codes and ensure consistency between the resident and early-career FP codebooks. The research analysts also coded one interview from another province to ensure reliability.

Data analysis for this paper involved the first author (MK) reviewing interview excerpts coded as influential factors for practice choices and aggregating them into potential overarching themes, based on the identification of patterns between and across the transcripts. We conducted comparative analysis[21] to compare thematic patterns identified from the early-career FP transcripts with the resident FP dataset. If new themes were identified from the resident FP transcripts, we used an iterative approach to find corresponding themes in the early-career FP transcripts. We also compared themes across provinces.

We used accepted strategies for validating qualitative research.[22] The findings were: i) triangulated across a large sample size of participants with diverse experiences from three provinces and two types of participant groups;[23] and ii) presented to FP members of the research team (DS, IS, GM), who were not involved in the analysis process for this paper, to confirm data interpretation.

Description of interview participants’ focused practice intentions or choices

The 22 resident and 38 early-career FPs reported a variety of intended or current clinical areas of practice, with most participants reporting a combination of focused area(s) and/or some form of comprehensive practice and focused practice. We present demographic and practice characteristics (Table 1 and 2) to reflect the range of resident and early-career FPs included in our analysis.

Among the resident FPs who intended to focus their practices, 21 (95%) anticipated practicing some form of comprehensive family medicine with focused practice. One resident FP envisioned solely working in focused practice. Among early-career FPs, 21 (55%) devoted more than half or all their time to a focused area and 30 (79%) offered some form of comprehensive family medicine. The most commonly reported areas of focused areas of practice in both groups were emergency and hospitalist medicine. Focused practice choices occurred on a continuum, ranging from the provision of all services under the umbrella of a defined area (e.g., dermatology) to a specific procedure within a particular area (e.g., only Botox injections).

Key factors contributing to intentions or choices of focused practice

We identified three key and three minor themes of influential factors that helped explain participants’ decisions to pursue focused practice. Key themes were prominent across both resident and early-career FP datasets, while minor themes were less salient in the data. Themes are described in detail in Table 3 with illustrative quotations.

Minor themes for influential factors for focused practice

Resident and early-career FPs described feeling attracted to a particular focused area (e.g., hospitalist medicine) because it aligned with their skills/values or helped them maintain specific competencies. Both participant groups indicated that a focused practice brought with it a sense of professional satisfaction by filling a perceived gap in care, increasing variety in their work, or being intellectually stimulated.

Both participant groups also described personal lived experiences that sparked their interest in particular focused practice areas. For example, experiences with family members, friends, or community members with mental health struggles or addictions, along with prior volunteer experiences, contributed to interest in focused practices in mental health and addictions.

Resident FPs described being attracted to focusing their practice due to available opportunities, community needs, and limited specialist availability. Similarly, early-career FPs reported being inclined to incorporate focused areas into their practices due to a multitude of job opportunities in focused practice.

Comparison between provinces

Our results were similar across the provinces studied. Resident and early-career FPs in British Columbia and Nova Scotia described similar concerns about inadequate compensation for the workload and responsibility involved in comprehensive family medicine practice. Specifically, early-career FPs in these provinces desired fee-for-service fee schedules that aligned with other provinces or alternative payment models. In Ontario, resident and early-career FPs expressed dissatisfaction with the province’s numerous payment models, describing loss of control over earnings in comprehensive family medicine practice, uncertainty, and distrust due to a fluctuating policy landscape (e.g., fee cuts, role restrictions).

Explanation of the findings

Previous work has identified newly graduating resident FPs as more likely to intend to provide a broad scope of practice compared to FPs in current practice.[3] Though our study was not designed for statistical comparisons, we also found that resident FPs were more likely to report intending to practice comprehensive family medicine than early-career FPs. The post-training working environment and lack of support for providing a broad scope of services have been suggested as possible driving forces for this finding.[3] Other studies have described comprehensive family medicine practice as too broad, overwhelming, involving a high degree of responsibility, allowing for minimal work-life balance,[7, 8] and providing insufficient financial incentives.[9] Factors reported to support the choice of focused practice include superior financial incentives,[14] opportunities for intellectual stimulation,[7, 8] reduced stress from a lower workload,[7] and prior training exposures.[24] Our study confirms these findings. Canadian FPs have reported feeling unprepared to deliver comprehensive care.[12, 25] We did not find this in our study. Instead, we found system-level barriers, linked to government policy, influencing focused practice choices.

Our study confirms influential factors for focused practice previously identified in the literature, and describes additional elements that, to our knowledge, have not been described before. Moreover, we found similar factors contributing to choices of focused practice for both resident and early-career FPs, demonstrating that these factors are consistent prior to and during independent practice.

Future directions

There is contention about the benefits and harms of increasing focused practice within family medicine.[26] The impact of rising numbers of FPs practicing in focused areas on the supply of FPs providing comprehensive care is still unknown and requires more research. Further work is also needed to identify reforms that may encourage FPs to offer a comprehensive scope of family medicine while supporting their personal and professional well-being.

Limitations

Data collection for this study occurred prior to the onset of COVID-19 and therefore does not necessarily reflect the current environment. This study only includes individuals who responded to requests to participate, which may not reflect all types of resident and early-career FPs. We did not ask participants specific questions about sex/gender, geography, and training location, focusing instead on open-ended questions. We may have developed a richer description by probing these additional areas.