Background and objectives: This study reports on a novel qualitative method for evaluating family practice training programs. Previous evaluation techniques have generally been quantitative in nature and have limited their scope to a few isolated elements of residency education.
Methods: A guest faculty, working in conjunction with local faculty, conducted a site analysis of an East Coast and a West Coast family practice residency. Multiple qualitative techniques were used, including participant observation, focus groups, long interviews, and analysis of key texts. Program strengths and weaknesses were analyzed, and a discrepancy model was used to compare program goals and ideals to the actual training realities. The analysis used a process of immersion/crystallization, and triangulation of the multiple data sources was achieved through repeated comparisons.
Results: This report focuses on the process of the evaluations, rather than on their content. In general, the sites have achieved most of their objectives, but notable limitations are present at both programs. This is particularly apparent in terms of multiple demands on faculty, the lack of a shared vision, and program isolation.
Conclusions: Significant lessons were learned from these initial assessments, which can be used to further refine the method. Comprehensive qualitative reviews may provide unexpected insights and identify program limitations and strengths.