Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleSpecial Communications

The Personal Doctoring Manifesto: A Perspective from the Keystone IV Conference

Jennifer E. DeVoe, Kathleen Barnes, Carl Morris, Kendall Campbell, Andrew Morris-Singer, John M. Westfall and Kevin Grumbach
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine July 2016, 29 (Supplement 1) S64-S68; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2016.S1.160012
Jennifer E. DeVoe
From the Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland (JED); OCHIN, Inc., Portland, OR (JED); the Group Health Family Health Center, Seattle, WA (KB, CM); the Department of Family Medicine and Rural Health, Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee (KC); Primary Care Progress, Cambridge, MA (AM-S); the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora (JMW); and the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco (KG).
MD, DPhil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kathleen Barnes
From the Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland (JED); OCHIN, Inc., Portland, OR (JED); the Group Health Family Health Center, Seattle, WA (KB, CM); the Department of Family Medicine and Rural Health, Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee (KC); Primary Care Progress, Cambridge, MA (AM-S); the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora (JMW); and the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco (KG).
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carl Morris
From the Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland (JED); OCHIN, Inc., Portland, OR (JED); the Group Health Family Health Center, Seattle, WA (KB, CM); the Department of Family Medicine and Rural Health, Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee (KC); Primary Care Progress, Cambridge, MA (AM-S); the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora (JMW); and the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco (KG).
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kendall Campbell
From the Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland (JED); OCHIN, Inc., Portland, OR (JED); the Group Health Family Health Center, Seattle, WA (KB, CM); the Department of Family Medicine and Rural Health, Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee (KC); Primary Care Progress, Cambridge, MA (AM-S); the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora (JMW); and the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco (KG).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew Morris-Singer
From the Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland (JED); OCHIN, Inc., Portland, OR (JED); the Group Health Family Health Center, Seattle, WA (KB, CM); the Department of Family Medicine and Rural Health, Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee (KC); Primary Care Progress, Cambridge, MA (AM-S); the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora (JMW); and the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco (KG).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John M. Westfall
From the Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland (JED); OCHIN, Inc., Portland, OR (JED); the Group Health Family Health Center, Seattle, WA (KB, CM); the Department of Family Medicine and Rural Health, Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee (KC); Primary Care Progress, Cambridge, MA (AM-S); the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora (JMW); and the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco (KG).
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kevin Grumbach
From the Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland (JED); OCHIN, Inc., Portland, OR (JED); the Group Health Family Health Center, Seattle, WA (KB, CM); the Department of Family Medicine and Rural Health, Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee (KC); Primary Care Progress, Cambridge, MA (AM-S); the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora (JMW); and the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco (KG).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The Keystone IV Conference was a touchstone moment for multigenerational conversations regarding our health care system and an opportunity to reconnect with the values of personal doctoring as a vocation. It inspired participants to renew commitments to relationships, healthy communities, and social change. Keystone IV was also a stark reminder of the need to rekindle family medicine's counterculture flame in today's tumultuous health care environment and reclaim the role of personal doctors in American society. Reimagining and reigniting the fire of personal relationship is today's counterculture movement for primary care. Personal doctors must heed the call for immediate action, which requires defining when relationships matter most in health care and understanding how to harness paradigm shifts in information technology, team-based care, and population health to strengthen, rather than undermine, personal doctoring. Simultaneously, we must also invent a new notion of personal doctoring that creates partnerships with patients and families to drive forward a social movement demanding health care focused on the whole person in the context of his or her community. Change will occur when patients insist on a personal doctoring approach as an essential priority for what they expect from the health care system—that anything less is unacceptable.

  • Doctoring
  • Family Medicine
  • Family Physician
  • Health Care Delivery
  • Personal Physician
  • Population Health
  • Primary Care
  • Professionalism
  • Social Justice

Guest editors' note: This article was prepared after the G. Gayle Stephens Keystone IV Conference by attendees who were compelled by their participation in the conference to formulate recommendations for action to enable personal physicians to make and honor their commitments to patients and their communities. It constitutes a Keystone IV “call to arms” from a multigenerational set of authors.

In a famous article that described family medicine as counterculture, Gayle Stephens1 recognized how family medicine was able to take advantage of the social movements of the 1960s to affirm a model of the personal doctor grounded in strong relationships with patients. He described how family medicine, itself a counterculture, aligned with reforms that defined the dominant counterculture of the day: “… agrarianism, utopianism, humanism, consumerism, and feminism. These are all themes of reform that can be traced in American history, and their emergence in the 1960s and 1970s created the climate of public opinion that made it possible for family practice to succeed in such an unprecedented way. We benefited from them even though we may not have been conscious that we were drawing on their strength” (p. 104).

In the 1980s and 1990s, family medicine's counterculture character dimmed as the discipline endeavored to institutionalize itself into the mainstream of medicine and take a place at the academic table. Stephens1 warned that this shift “to professionalize and bureaucratize” (p. 104) risked undermining the core values of personal doctoring by replacing a relational encounter with a transactional encounter.

Keystone IV was a touchstone moment for multigenerational conversations regarding the current state of our health care system and an opportunity to reconnect with the values of personal doctoring as a vocation. It inspired participants to renew commitments to relationships, healthy communities, and social change. Keystone IV was also a stark reminder of the need to rekindle the counterculture flame in today's tumultuous health care environment and reclaim the role of personal doctors in American society.

Emerging from the discourse were profound and compelling questions: Are deep, personal relationships grounded in regular face-to-face contact between a personal doctor and a patient over a lifetime now obsolete? Is relationship-based primary care compatible with many powerful contemporary trends? In a rapidly changing society, are we clinging to a notion of personal doctoring that is sentimentalized and no longer what many patients desire or the health care system needs? We heard a resounding “no” from Keystone IV: Reimagining and reigniting the fire of personal relationship is today's counterculture movement for primary care. We also believe personal doctors must heed the call for immediate action. This call to action requires defining when relationships matter most in health care and understanding how to harness paradigm shifts in information technology, team-based care, and population health to strengthen rather than undermine personal doctoring.

Understanding When Relationships Matter Most

The personal doctor desires to change lives with conversations and acts of kindness in ways that patients esteem.2 But how much do we truly know regarding if and when patients value a relationship with a personal doctor?3,4 There is considerable evidence that continuity of care leads to better outcomes.5 There is also growing evidence about the benefit of having personal doctors actively engaged in hospital care decisions and transitions after hospital discharge.6,7 Most patients want a personal doctor.8,9 More evidence about personal doctoring relationships is needed. What is the impact of relationship on patient satisfaction, clinician satisfaction, intermediate outcomes, and overall health? How do we define a relationship? How do patients define healing relationships? When does relationship matter the most? How can we ensure that personal doctors are there for patients when it matters most? What are the most valid and pragmatic scales and metrics for assessing relationship? To answer these important questions, personal doctors must engage patients in efforts to better define and measure the value of relationship-centered care. Research on personal doctoring relationships will be most illuminating when both partners in the relationship collaborate on this research agenda.

Strengthening Relationships Through Technology

Health information technology (IT) is often a double-edged sword.10⇓⇓⇓⇓–15 These technologies represent a significant change from traditional face-to-face interactions, and many physicians question the value of these tools.12⇓⇓–15 At the same time, IT creates opportunities for connection between a patient and personal doctor that transcends the intermittent examination room visit to include alternative modalities (eg, smartphone, text, video conferencing, secure messaging through the electronic health record [EHR]), enabling more frequent and accessible communication.11 Health care professionals are effectively using virtual touches to strengthen relationships and provide more continuous care.12 The availability of an expanded array of technologies is truly an opportunity for the personal doctor to be more responsive to patient needs. Personal doctors must take action to ensure that health IT enhances rather than diminishes relationships and patient care. We can participate in the development of new EHR functionality that better supports personal doctoring and relationships,16 insisting that this functionality be prioritized over the billing and transactional features that have dominated EHR design. Personal doctors can help to enable technology and data to inform our collaborations with patients, families, and communities.17⇓–19

Strengthening Relationships Through Team-Based Care

Personal doctoring is no longer an exclusive relationship between a patient and a physician, but rather a relationship that includes many other team members. Team-based care has always existed in primary care, but teams have grown in size and complexity. To meet the growing demands of primary care, a “Share the Care” model has emerged20⇓–22 and requires reenvisioning how a team can best provide personal doctoring. If implemented well, team-based care can liberate the personal doctor from tasks that do not have a high value in the relationship, allowing personal touches to focus on being present during the time when patients value the relationship most. For example, under the Share the Care model, delegating tasks related to determining whether a patient is due for a mammogram and processing an order for a mammogram frees up time that can be spent with a woman with an abnormal mammogram result, discussing diagnostic and treatment options.21,22 There is a need for more focused investment in research that elucidates how to successfully implement primary care teams. Personal doctors, teams, and patients can work together to rethink the role of the personal doctor, helping everyone to shift our expectations and mindset.23

The New Counterculture Movement: Building Relationships and Partnerships

“We have glimpsed a new vision of what medical care can and ought to be—and we have turned toward it, but as every mountain climber knows, the big ones have false summits which must be passed to scale the real top. We've all had our clear days when we could see forever, but then the clouds swirled in and obscured the higher elevations”1 (p. 108).

We must reach the summit and strengthen every aspect of the personal doctoring relationship; however, we cannot declare victory. We contend that to truly transform the health care system, we must also invent a new notion of personal doctoring that creates partnerships with patients and families to drive forward a social movement demanding health care focused on the whole person in the context of his or her community. Now is the time for strategic thinking and tactical planning about what it will take to build and advance this powerful social movement, akin to what Gayle Stephens referenced as the movements of feminism, civil rights, and agrarianism that shaped the context for the birth of family medicine in the United States. We are at a transformative moment in the history of health care in this nation, when the system is poised to be fundamentally restructured on a foundation of empowered family medicine, primary care, and personal doctoring. We will not realize this vision without a new counterculture movement focused on building relationships and partnerships.

How do we harness the ingredients that make personal doctoring relationships successful to also build partnerships with patient advocates who are committed to a shared vision? This requires movement away from timid, conventional approaches toward bold, radical actions. Gayle Stephens1 observed: “I doubt that many of us have an image of ourselves as revolutionaries. Most of us deal, on a day-to-day basis, with a much smaller quantum of reality; and, in truth, are much more motivated by purely personal goals than the heady stuff of national purpose. I suspect that that is the way all revolutions look from the inside. But let us look at the bigger picture for a moment …” (p. 106).

The bigger picture is shown in the Keystone IV personal doctoring manifesto: Those of us who strive each day to build relationships that make personal doctoring fulfilling must also engage in deep coalition building with patients, consumer groups, and the public at large to continue to drive the health care system to a very different orientation and set of values. Change will occur when patients insist on great primary care and a personal doctoring approach as essential priorities for what they expect from their health plans and the health care system overall—that anything less is unacceptable. Partnering together, physicians and patients can demand that all health care organizations and payment policies enable personal physicians to be at the patient's side (bedside, screen side, team side, family side) during crucial times and life transitions (birth, loss, grief, illness, death) and support the personal physician's integral role in helping patients and families make critical health and medical care decisions throughout life and in all settings (eg, homes, hospitals, hospice care settings).24⇓⇓⇓–28 Although debate continues about how best to define the exact scope that constitutes comprehensive care,29 we consider the commitment of personal doctors to be involved at critical junctures in a patient's life and health course to be a sentinel feature of a comprehensivist.

Keystone IV, like previous Keystone conferences, catalyzed a resetting of our compass, a call to action, a reminder to be our better selves. It pushed us off the mountain and back to our daily work with a renewed vision and inspiration to act. It challenged us to reclaim personal doctoring as a vocation instead of just a job. It challenged us to make every encounter one that supports relationship. We can be both rigorously scientific and unapologetically relational. Keystone IV sparked ideas about a new social movement that reinvigorates our roots in counterculture. Personal doctoring is about building relationships that matter; personal doctoring is also about building partnerships to advocate for systems of health care, payment, technology, and training that support better health.

Notes

  • This article was externally peer reviewed.

  • Funding: none.

  • Conflict of interest: JED is on the editorial board of the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine.

  • This article was prepared after the G. Gayle Stephens Keystone IV Conference by attendees who were compelled by their participation in the conference to formulate recommendations for action to enable personal physicians to make and honor their commitments to patients and their communities. It constitutes a Keystone IV “call to arms” from a multigenerational set of authors.

  • Received for publication January 7, 2016.
  • Revision received March 2, 2016.
  • Accepted for publication March 8, 2016.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Stephens G
    . Family medicine as counterculture. Fam Med 1979;21:103–9.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. Campbell KM
    . Washing feet and clipping toenails: the servanthood of a family physician. Fam Med 2014;46:221–2.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Allison C,
    2. Zittleman L,
    3. Ringel M,
    4. et al
    . Translating the medical home into patient-centred language. London J Prim Care (Abingdon) 2014;6:124–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Westfall JM,
    2. Zittleman L,
    3. Ringel M,
    4. et al
    . How do rural patients benefit from the patient-centred medical home? A card study in the High Plains Research Network. London J Prim Care (Abingdon) 2014;6:136–48.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Saultz JW,
    2. Lochner J
    . Interpersonal continuity of care and care outcomes: a critical review. Ann Fam Med 2005;3:159–66.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Adams DR,
    2. Flores A,
    3. Coltri A,
    4. Meltzer DO,
    5. Arora VM
    . A missed opportunity to improve patient satisfaction? Patient perceptions of inpatient communication with their primary care physician. Am J Med Qual 2015 Jul 8 [E-pub ahead of print].
  7. 7.↵
    1. Rickert J
    . Patient-centered care: what it means and how to get there. HealthAffairs Blog. January 24, 2012. Available from: http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2012/01/24/patient-centered-care-what-it-means-and-how-to-get-there/. Accessed May 21, 2016.
  8. 8.↵
    1. Saultz JW,
    2. Albedaiwi W
    . Interpersonal continuity of care and patient satisfaction: a critical review. Ann Fam Med 2004;2:445–51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Grumbach K,
    2. Selby JV,
    3. Damberg C,
    4. et al
    . Resolving the gatekeeper conundrum: what patients value in primary care and referrals to specialists. JAMA 1999;282:261–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Friedberg MW,
    2. Chen PG,
    3. Van Busum KR,
    4. et al
    . Factors affecting physician professional satisfaction and their implications for patient care, health systems, and health policy. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2013.
  11. 11.↵
    1. Makoul G,
    2. Curry RH,
    3. Tang PC
    . The use of electronic medical records: communication patterns in outpatient encounters. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2001;8:610–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Hsu J,
    2. Huang J,
    3. Fung V,
    4. Robertson N,
    5. Jimison H,
    6. Frankel R
    . Health information technology and physician-patient interactions: impact of computers on communication during outpatient primary care visits. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005;12:474–80.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. McGrath JM,
    2. Arar NH,
    3. Pugh JA
    . The influence of electronic medical record usage on nonverbal communication in the medical interview. Health Informatics J 2007;13:105–18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. O'Malley AS,
    2. Cohen GR,
    3. Grossman JM
    . Electronic medical records and communication with patients and other clinicians: are we talking less? Issue Brief Cent Stud Health Syst Change 2010;(131):1–4.
  15. 15.↵
    1. Shachak A,
    2. Reis S
    . The impact of electronic medical records on patient-doctor communication during consultation: a narrative literature review. J Eval Clin Pract 2009;15:641–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Krist AH,
    2. Beasley JW,
    3. Crosson JC,
    4. et al
    . Electronic health record functionality needed to better support primary care. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014;21:764–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Devoe JE,
    2. Sears A
    . The OCHIN community information network: bringing together community health centers, information technology, and data to support a patient-centered medical village. J Am Board Fam Med 2013;26:271–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Krist AH,
    2. Green LA,
    3. Phillips RL,
    4. et al
    . Health information technology needs help from primary care researchers. J Am Board Fam Med 2015;28:306–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Phillips RL Jr.,
    2. Bazemore AW,
    3. DeVoe JE,
    4. et al
    . A family medicine health technology strategy for achieving the triple aim for US health care. Fam Med 2015;47:628–35.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Wagner EH
    . The role of patient care teams in chronic disease management. BMJ 2000;320:569–72.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Ghorob A,
    2. Bodenheimer T
    . Sharing the care to improve access to primary care. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1955–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Ghorob A,
    2. Bodenheimer T
    . Share the care: building teams in primary care practices. J Am Board Fam Med 2012;25:143–5.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Saba GW,
    2. Villela TJ,
    3. Chen E,
    4. Hammer H,
    5. Bodenheimer T
    . The myth of the lone physician: toward a collaborative alternative. Ann Fam Med 2012;10:169–73.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. DeVoe J
    . When knowing more about a patient enables us to do less. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175:1605–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Stadler DS,
    2. Zyzanski SJ,
    3. Stange KC,
    4. Langa DM
    . Family physicians and current inpatient practice. J Am Board Fam Pract 1997;10:357–62.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. McConaghy JR
    . The emerging role of hospitalists–will family physicians continue to practice hospital medicine? J Am Board Fam Pract 1998;11:324–6.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Goroll AH,
    2. Hunt DP
    . Bridging the hospitalist-primary care divide through collaborative care. N Engl J Med 2015;372:308–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Stange KC
    . Power to advocate for health. Ann Fam Med 2010;8:100–7.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Grumbach K
    . To be or not to be comprehensive. Ann Fam Med 2015;13:204–5.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 29 (Supplement 1)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 29, Issue Supplement 1
July-August 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Personal Doctoring Manifesto: A Perspective from the Keystone IV Conference
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 11 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
The Personal Doctoring Manifesto: A Perspective from the Keystone IV Conference
Jennifer E. DeVoe, Kathleen Barnes, Carl Morris, Kendall Campbell, Andrew Morris-Singer, John M. Westfall, Kevin Grumbach
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Jul 2016, 29 (Supplement 1) S64-S68; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2016.S1.160012

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
The Personal Doctoring Manifesto: A Perspective from the Keystone IV Conference
Jennifer E. DeVoe, Kathleen Barnes, Carl Morris, Kendall Campbell, Andrew Morris-Singer, John M. Westfall, Kevin Grumbach
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Jul 2016, 29 (Supplement 1) S64-S68; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2016.S1.160012
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Understanding When Relationships Matter Most
    • Strengthening Relationships Through Technology
    • Strengthening Relationships Through Team-Based Care
    • The New Counterculture Movement: Building Relationships and Partnerships
    • Notes
    • References
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Time for Family Medicine to Stop Enabling a Dysfunctional Health Care System
  • Will people have personal physicians anymore?: Dr Ian McWhinney Lecture, 2017
  • The Chief Primary Care Medical Officer: Restoring Continuity
  • Reimagining Our Relationships with Patients: A Perspective from the Keystone IV Conference
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Primary Care Is an Essential Ingredient to a Successful Population Health Improvement Strategy
  • Integrating Community and Clinical Data to Assess Patient Risks with A Population Health Assessment Engine (PHATE)
  • Hepatitis C Update and Expanding the Role of Primary Care
Show more Special Communications

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Doctoring
  • Family Medicine
  • Family Physician
  • Health Care Delivery
  • Personal Physician
  • Population Health
  • Primary Care
  • Professionalism
  • Social Justice

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire