Assessment of faculty productivity in academic departments of medicine in the United States: a national survey

BMC Medical Education

Elie A Akl³  Holger J Schünemann¹  Anne B Curtis²  John Fudyma²  Dany Raad²  Victor F Kairouz² 

[1] Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada;Department of Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA;Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Riad-El-Solh, P.O. Box: 11-0236, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon

关键词: Survey;    Department of medicine;    Academia;    Salary compensation;    Faculty productivity;   

Others  :  1090963
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-14-205

 received in 2014-02-13, accepted in 2014-09-23,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Faculty productivity is essential for academic medical centers striving to achieve excellence and national recognition. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether and how academic Departments of Medicine in the United States measure faculty productivity for the purpose of salary compensation.

Methods

We surveyed the Chairs of academic Departments of Medicine in the United States in 2012. We sent a paper-based questionnaire along with a personalized invitation letter by postal mail. For non-responders, we sent reminder letters, then called them and faxed them the questionnaire. The questionnaire included 8 questions with 23 tabulated close-ended items about the types of productivity measured (clinical, research, teaching, administrative) and the measurement strategies used. We conducted descriptive analyses.

Results

Chairs of 78 of 152 eligible departments responded to the survey (51% response rate). Overall, 82% of respondents reported measuring at least one type of faculty productivity for the purpose of salary compensation. Amongst those measuring faculty productivity, types measured were: clinical (98%), research (61%), teaching (62%), and administrative (64%). Percentages of respondents who reported the use of standardized measurements units (e.g., Relative Value Units (RVUs)) varied from 17% for administrative productivity to 95% for research productivity. Departments reported a wide variation of what exact activities are measured and how they are monetarily compensated. Most compensation plans take into account academic rank (77%). The majority of compensation plans are in the form of a bonus on top of a fixed salary (66%) and/or an adjustment of salary based on previous period productivity (55%).

Conclusion

Our survey suggests that most academic Departments of Medicine in the United States measure faculty productivity and convert it into standardized units for the purpose of salary compensation. The exact activities that are measured and how they are monetarily compensated varied substantially across departments.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Kairouz et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Levine AS, Detre TP, McDonald MC, Roth LH, Huber GA, Brignano MG, Danoff SN, Farner DM, Masnick JL, Romoff JA: The relationship between the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center-a profile in synergy. Acad Med 2008, 83(9):816-826.
• [2]Wartman SA: Toward a virtuous cycle: the changing face of academic health centers. Acad Med 2008, 83(9):797-799.
• [3]Akl EA, Meerpohl JJ, Raad D, Piaggio G, Mattioni M, Paggi MG, Gurtner A, Mattarocci S, Tahir R, Muti P, Schünemann HJ: Effects of assessing the productivity of faculty in academic medical centres: a systematic review. CMAJ 2012, 184(11):E602-612.
• [4]Garson A Jr, Strifert KE, Beck JR, Schulmeier GA, Patrick JW, Buffone GJ, Feigin RD: The metrics process: Baylor's development of a "report card" for faculty and departments. Acad Med 1999, 74(8):861-870.
• [5]Santilli SM: Current issues facing academic surgery departments: stakeholders' views. Acad Med 2008, 83(1):66-73.
• [6]Abouleish AE: Productivity-based compensations versus incentive plans. Anesth Analg 2008, 107(6):1765-1767.
• [7]Gunderman RB: The perils of paying academic physicians according to the clinical revenue they generate. Med Sci Monit 2004, 10(2):RA15-RA20.
• [8]Lubarsky DA: Incentivize everything, incentivize nothing. Anesth Analg 2005, 100(2):490-492.
• [9]Miller RD: Academic anesthesia faculty salaries: Incentives, availability, and productivity. Anesth Analg 2005, 100(2):487-489.
• [10]Tarquinio GT, Dittus RS, Byrne DW, Kaiser A, Neilson EG: Effects of performance‒based compensation and faculty track on the clinical activity, research portfolio, and teaching mission of a large academic department of medicine. Acad Med 2003, 78(7):690-701.
• [11]Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, Diguiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, Cooper R, Felix LM, Pratap S: Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009, 3:MR000008.
• [12]VanGeest JB JT, Welch VL: Methodologies for improving response rates in surveys of physicians: a systematic review. Eval Health Prof 2007 2007, 30(4):303-21.
• [13]Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA: Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 1997, 50(10):1129-1136.
• [14]Filler G, Burkoski V, Tithecott G: Measuring physicians’ productivity: a three-year study to evaluate a new remuneration system. Acad Med 2014, 89(1):144-152.
• [15]Golden BR, Hannam R, Hyatt D: Managing the supply of physicians’ services through intelligent incentives. Can Med Assoc J 2012, 184(1):E77-E80.
• [16]Patel P, Siemons D, Shields M: Proven methods to achieve high payment for performance. J Med Pract Manage 2006, 23(1):5-11.
• [17]Shaw EK, Howard J, Etz RS, Hudson SV, Crabtree BF: How team-based reflection affects quality improvement implementation: a qualitative study. Qual Manag Health Care 2012, 21(2):104.
• [18]Stites S, Steffen P, Turner S, Pingleton S: Aligning clinical compensation with clinical productivity: design and implementation of the financial value unit (FVU) system in an academic department of internal medicine. Acad Med 2013, 88(7):946-951.
• [19]Sakai T, Hudson M, Davis P, Williams J: Integration of academic and clinical performance-based faculty compensation plans: a system and its impact on an anaesthesiology department. Br J Anaesth 2013, aet150.
• [20]Glass KP, Pieper LE, Berlin MF: Incentive-based physician compensation models. J Ambul Care Manage 1999, 22(3):36-46.
• [21]Mets B, Galford JA: Leadership and management of academic anesthesiology departments in the United States. J Clin Anesth 2009, 21(2):83-93.
• [22]Leung S: Is it right to measure the productivity of senior clinician/educators by relative value units? J Grad Med Educ 2011, 3(1):9.
• [23]Berger JR, Maher RF Jr: An innovative approach for calculating the work relative value units of clinical activities otherwise concealed. Acad Med 2011, 86(7):853-857.