Mental health and psychiatry training in primary care residency programs. Part II. What skills and diagnoses are taught, how adequate, and what affects training directors' satisfaction?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to describe the psychiatric skills and diagnostic categories taught in primary care training programs, their adequacy, the perceived needs and desires for curriculum enhancement and the factors affecting training directors' satisfaction.

METHOD: All 1365 directors of accredited residency training programs in Internal Medicine (IM), Family Practice (FP), Obstetrics and Gynecology (Ob/Gyn), Pediatrics (Peds) and psychiatry received a 16-item anonymous questionnaire about psychiatry training in their program. Responses to the questionnaire to items concerning the skills and diagnostic categories taught, assessment of adequacy of teaching and desires for curriculum enhancement for specific skills and diagnostic categories were analyzed. The factors affecting training directors' satisfaction were explored.

RESULTS: Interviewing skills were taught by a majority of all training programs and were considered adequate by 81% of FP and 54% of IM programs, in contrast to less than a majority of Ob/Gyn and Peds programs (P<.001). A majority provided diagnostic interviewing and counseling training, but only FP considered it adequate. A majority taught psychopharmacology and various psychiatric diagnoses, but only in FP did a majority consider them adequate. Both Peds and FP programs teach child psychiatry; significantly, more Peds compared to FP consider their training to be adequate. A vast majority of IM, Ob/Gyn and Peds programs, and 50% of FP programs desired more training in interviewing techniques and diagnostic interview. A majority of all programs desired more counseling and psychopharmacology training and more training in disorders of childhood and adolescence. The overall satisfaction rate for psychiatric training across specialties was 46% (n=657). Sixty-four percent of FP programs were satisfied compared to 31% of non-FP programs. Satisfaction was associated with increased amount of psychiatric training, diversity of training formats, venues, faculty and settings, the amount of contribution to teaching by psychiatry departments and the presence of current teaching in interviewing skills. There were specialty-specific differences in factors associated with satisfaction. In general, a smaller size of residency program was associated with satisfaction except in IM, where larger size was associated with satisfaction. Satisfaction was associated with the opinion that primary care physician should be ready and willing to treat more psychiatric conditions.

CONCLUSION: Most primary care training programs currently offer training in most psychiatric skills and disorders, but a majority of training directors are dissatisfied with their psychiatry training. There is a difference in the estimation of adequacy concerning training between FP, which consistently rates their teaching to be adequate, and all other primary care programs, which consider their teaching inadequate. This difference may be partly due to actual differences in amount and diversity of training as well as differences in the threshold for satisfaction. A vast majority of primary care training programs desire more training in almost all aspects of psychiatry, and there may be specialty-specific needs and areas of curriculum enhancement. To enhance satisfaction, we should improve the quality as well as the quantity of training, as well as the diversity in training formats, venues and faculty.