Does the academic performance of psychiatrists influence success in the NHS Clinical Excellence Award Scheme?

OBJECTIVES: Given the uncertainty about factors that influence receipt of Clinical Excellence Awards (CEA) and recent availability of advanced research metrics, we examined the factors that predict CEA success using a convenience sample of English psychiatrists. DESIGN: Observational study examining region, subspecialty, H-index, M-index, number of publications, years since registration and years in specialty. SETTING: ACCEA Nominal Roll, cross-referenced with data from the GMC's list of registered medical practitioners and Thompson's Web of Science database. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 494 psychiatrists including 245 with national levels awards and a random sample with local level awards. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Receipt of local or national CEA awards in 2008 and 2009. RESULTS: Of those with national awards, 126 had university contracts and 119 NHS contracts. Across all staff, years since qualification in medicine and H-index were the dominant influences. For local awards we found that years worked in the specialty was the main predictor of a CEA award with a smaller contribution from H-index. For national awards to university staff (academics) years on the medical register and publication rate were significant predictors. For national awards to NHS staff (non-academics) H-index and total cites were predictive, but these were themselves related to age. CONCLUSIONS: Progression in CEAs among psychiatrists is strongly influenced by age (years spent in specialty and years on the medical register) with an additional contribution from research productivity. Currently, research impact is crudely assessed in the CEA process. We suggest that CEA committees formally assess the impact of NHS-related research using standardized research metrics which are openly available. We also suggest that supporting organizations and local trusts adhere to the rules mandated by the ACCEA.