Cargando…
Assessment of faculty productivity in academic departments of medicine in the United States: a national survey
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4189191/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25257232 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-205 |
_version_ | 1782338322578800640 |
---|---|
author | Kairouz, Victor F Raad, Dany Fudyma, John Curtis, Anne B Schünemann, Holger J Akl, Elie A |
author_facet | Kairouz, Victor F Raad, Dany Fudyma, John Curtis, Anne B Schünemann, Holger J Akl, Elie A |
author_sort | Kairouz, Victor F |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1472-6920-14-205) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4189191 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-41891912014-10-09 Assessment of faculty productivity in academic departments of medicine in the United States: a national survey Kairouz, Victor F Raad, Dany Fudyma, John Curtis, Anne B Schünemann, Holger J Akl, Elie A BMC Med Educ Research Article 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1472-6920-14-205) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-09-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4189191/ /pubmed/25257232 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-205 Text en © Kairouz et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Kairouz, Victor F Raad, Dany Fudyma, John Curtis, Anne B Schünemann, Holger J Akl, Elie A Assessment of faculty productivity in academic departments of medicine in the United States: a national survey |
title | Assessment of faculty productivity in academic departments of medicine in the United States: a national survey |
title_full | Assessment of faculty productivity in academic departments of medicine in the United States: a national survey |
title_fullStr | Assessment of faculty productivity in academic departments of medicine in the United States: a national survey |
title_full_unstemmed | Assessment of faculty productivity in academic departments of medicine in the United States: a national survey |
title_short | Assessment of faculty productivity in academic departments of medicine in the United States: a national survey |
title_sort | assessment of faculty productivity in academic departments of medicine in the united states: a national survey |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4189191/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25257232 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-205 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kairouzvictorf assessmentoffacultyproductivityinacademicdepartmentsofmedicineintheunitedstatesanationalsurvey AT raaddany assessmentoffacultyproductivityinacademicdepartmentsofmedicineintheunitedstatesanationalsurvey AT fudymajohn assessmentoffacultyproductivityinacademicdepartmentsofmedicineintheunitedstatesanationalsurvey AT curtisanneb assessmentoffacultyproductivityinacademicdepartmentsofmedicineintheunitedstatesanationalsurvey AT schunemannholgerj assessmentoffacultyproductivityinacademicdepartmentsofmedicineintheunitedstatesanationalsurvey AT akleliea assessmentoffacultyproductivityinacademicdepartmentsofmedicineintheunitedstatesanationalsurvey |