1 of 22

BRC

Building Research Capacity

“The building blocks of family medicine research.”

2 of 22

�

What Does “Research Capacity” �Mean to Your Department: A BRC Dialogue

“The building blocks of family medicine research.”

David Schneider MD MSPH, Bernard Ewigman MD MSPH

CJ Peek PhD, Andrew Bazemore MD

ADFM Annual Meeting

Washington, DC

February 23, 2018

3 of 22

�

Outline of Our Presentation Today

Overview of BRC – David Schneider, MD MPSH
Findings from Research Capacity Survey – Bernard Ewigman, MD MSPH
University of Minnesota: A Culture of Inquiry – CJ Peek PhD
Speakers Reactions – ??? names
Small Group Dialogue – All Participants
Reflections and Next Steps – Andrew Bazemore, MD MPH

“The building blocks of family medicine research.”

4 of 22

�

2014 Task Force

Recommended Development

of a Building Research Capacity

Initiative

Approved by NAPCRG & ADFM Boards

November, 2015

Published Commentary

Annals of Family Medicine

January/February, 2016,

vol 14. no 1. pages 82-83

“The building blocks of family medicine research.”

5 of 22

�

“The building blocks of family medicine research.”

THE BUILDING RESEARCH CAPACITY (BRC) INITIATIVE:

LAUNCHED AT THE 2016 ANNUAL NAPCRG MEETING

Bernard Ewigman, Frederick Chen, Ardis Davis, Lee Green,

Dana King, Tony Kuzel, David Schneider, Tom Vansaghi

(BRC Steering Committee)

http://www.annfammed.org/content/14/6/585

6 of 22

BRC Purpose

The BRC initiative aims to provide opportunities

for all family medicine departments, residency programs,

research networks and centers to engage in

a mutually beneficial learning community

to leverage our strengths and resources

for building research and scholarship capacity

to improve the health of North Americans

7 of 22

BRC Organization

BRC Steering Committee

Reports to the ADFM & NAPCRG Boards
Coordinates Work Groups and Task Forces

BRC Work Groups

Curriculum Work Group
Consultation Work Group
Assessment & Evaluation

BRC Task Forces

PaCE
Mentoring

8 of 22

BRC Consultants

9 of 22

�For More Information Contact BRC

Hannah Bruins

BRC Program Coordinator

http://www.napcrg.org/Programs/BuildingResearchCapacity(BRC)

Email: hbruins@napcrg.org

Phone: (913) 906-6000

Ext. 5413

10 of 22

What Does “Research Capacity” �Mean to Your Department: �Findings from the Research Capacity Survey

Bernard Ewigman, MD MSPH

Chair, BRC Steering Committee

Chair, Department of Family Medicine

University of Chicago/NorthShore University HealthSystem

11 of 22

�ADFM-CERA-FMAH 2016 Chairs Survey �Selected Findings

Chair Self Assessment of Department Research Capacity
Characteristics of Departments by Research Capacity
Chair Satisfaction with Department Research Capacity
Chair Satisfaction with Department Scholarly Curiosity and Inquiry

12 of 22

Survey Question on �Self Assessment of Department �Research Capacity

13 of 22

14 of 22

Characteristics of Departments with Minimal vs. Moderate vs. Significant Research Capacity
	Minimal Research	Moderate Research	Significant Research	P values
Has >4 faculty with protected research time	3 (7%)	9 (41%)	28 (85%)	<.0001
Has >4 FTE of total protected research FTE	1 (2%)	3 (14%)	28 (85%)	<.0001
Has >50% external salary support for FTE above	3 (7%)	6 (27%)	22 (67%)	<.0001
Has >=3 external funding sources	4 (9)	9 (41%)	30 (91%)	<.0001

15 of 22

Characteristics of Departments with Minimal vs. Moderate vs. Significant Research Capacity
	Minimal Research	Moderate Research	Significant Research	p values
Has >=3 PIs/Co-PIs in department	3 (7%)	5 (23%)	25 (76%)	<.0001
Have >=1 faculty who has served on a research or research training peer-review panel	8 (19%)	7 (32%)	25 (76%)	<.0001

16 of 22

Characteristics of Departments with Minimal vs. Moderate vs. Significant Research Capacity
	Minimal Research	Moderate Research	Significant Research	p values
Has >=3 "research laboratories" and sources of data used by faculty	21 (49%)	14 (67%)	27 (82%)	0.0126
Chair spent most of pre-chair career as researcher with significant research track record	9 (21%)	5 (23%)	15 (46%)	0.0490

17 of 22

Chair Satisfaction Questions

How satisfied are you with your department’s current level of research productivity (external awards, peer reviewed presentations and publications)?

How satisfied are you with your department’s current level of scholarly curiosity and inquiry more broadly (evidence based practice, clinical reviews, data driven quality improvement, educational creativity and evaluation, narrative publications, etc)

18 of 22

Chair Satisfaction with Department Research Productivity
	Minimal Research	Moderate Research	Significant Research	p value
Dissatisfied with Research Productivity	36 (61)	9 (15)	14 (24)	.0001
Satisfied with Research Productivity	7 (18)	13 (33)	19 (49)	.0001

19 of 22

Chair Satisfaction with Department Scholarly Curiosity and Inquiry
	Minimal Research	Moderate Research	Significant Research	Subtotals	p values
Dissatisfied with Scholarly Curiosity and Inquiry	29 (56)	8 (16)	15 (28)	52 (100)	.0383
Satisfied with Scholarly Curiosity and Inquiry	14 (31)	14 (31)	17 (38)	45 (100)	.0383
	43	22	32	97*

*missing 2 responses

20 of 22

Summary DRAFT

Research capacity in family medicine departments reflects the well known (e.g. Bland) factors that characterize productive research departments in all disciplines:
Leadership
Critical mass of faculty
Multiple sources of data
Resources available to support faculty effort

21 of 22

Summary NOTES

This is where I will draw conclusions about satisfaction and dissatisfaction and suggest that we need to learn more about how successful departments engender a culture of inquiry in the absence of the usual trappings.

Then tie it back to the four categories mentioned at the beginning, and display the data for the University of Minnesota to set CJ up for his talk.

22 of 22

CJs slides are next