Update on the Rural Faculty Survey 1992     From Robert C. Bowman, M.D.

The following represents data compiled data from respondents to the national survey regarding rural faculty hours and activities. The following Departments and Programs had two or more rural faculty with at least 20 total rural faculty hours (arranged by zip code):

+ includes one non-FP faculty member involved in rural programs

* includes one or more faculty from across the state involved in state AHEC

! Includes faculty at new or developing sites

The survey is not a total picture of rural faculty involved in Family Medicine, but it reflects activities in some of the most active programs. Many of the programs are dependent on a single faculty member. My move from ETSU to here nearly excluded ETSU from consideration in this list. Few residencies have the resources to utilize faculty as exclusively rural. The hub-spoke models above represent a means of extending rural faculty resources to community-based residencies.

In the Spring of 1992, 1036 potential rural faculty received survey forms developed by STFM and East Tennessee State University. These candidates were identified by the author during national meetings involving rural health, through mailings to STFM and FP training programs, or referrals by other rural faculty. They were full or part time family practice faculty who had either indicated interest in rural programs or who were identified by their program directors. Some had attended or given rural presentations. The study is at the stage of the second mailing and data verification.

There were 404 returned surveys from 46 different states. The group included 253 full time and 106 part time faculty. The preliminary results indicated 183 faculty who spend at least four hours to full time a week on rural faculty duties (Group One with mean of 8.9 hrs.) There were 121 others who had 1 to 3.5 hours a week as rural (Group Two). Another 56 faculty had rural interest but no rural faculty hours. Thirty were no longer active in rural practice or academics. These 86 were not considered rural faculty for analysis. The survey had a 39% response rate.

The rural faculty had memberships in the following organizations AAFP 323 (80%), NRHA 92 (23%), STFM 229 (57%), Christian medical organizations 33 (8%). The mean patients care hours was 13.9 hours a week. Twenty-nine percent were doing rural research, 11% had a government position, 30% had a leadership role in organized medicine.

The following section lists interests with responses of 1 indicating extreme interest and 3 = somewhat interested and 5 = no interest.

Rural programs seem to be the major interest of the rural faculty. Rural oriented medical school admissions are another major interest area, but curiously premedical program interest lags a bit.

The above suggests that program development workshops, an emphasis on rural health policy emphasis, or asking rural faculty to provide some of the faculty development is a better means of interesting rural faculty.

It is interesting that so many wanted to provide rural faculty development. Most of those surveyed attended rural meetings and 98 direct rural programs. The others probably have some responsibility for rural program direction. Thirty nine were PHS advisors for their residency, forty were FP program directors and 26 were FP Department Chairs.

Faculty listed the following numbers of model rural programs at their sites:

Totals

2 faculty noted 9 models at their site 18

3 noted 5 models, 15

5 noted 4, 20

18 noted 3, 54

11 noted 2, 22

33 noted 1, 33

for 162 models

There are a few duplications of faculty from the same program, but over 140 models are available for studies involving rural medical education.

The following table is a review of the responses regarding procedures:

The next step is sending out interest lists for STFM, agromedicine and other groups. Further surveys and follow-ups are planned. Contact Robert Bowman, M.D. (402)559-8873, , for further information.