Literature DB >> 9311321

A relative-value-based system for calculating faculty productivity in teaching, research, administration, and patient care.

C Hilton1, W Fisher, A Lopez, C Sanders.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To design and test a simple, easily modifiable system for calculating faculty productivity in teaching, research, administration, and patient care in which all areas of endeavor would be recognized and high productivity in one area would produce results similar to high productivity in another at the Louisiana State University School of Medicine in New Orleans.
METHOD: A relative-value and time-based system was designed in 1996 so that similar efforts in the four areas would produce similar scores, and a profile reflecting the authors' estimates of high productivity ("super faculty") was developed for each area. The activity profiles of 17 faculty members were used to test the system.
RESULTS: "Super-faculty" scores in all areas were similar. The faculty members' mean scores were higher for teaching and research than for administration and patient care, and all four mean scores were substantially lower than the respective totals for the "super faculty". In each category the scores of those faculty members who scored above the mean in that category were used to calculate new mean scores. The mean scores for these faculty members were similar to those for the "super faculty" in teaching and research but were substantially lower for administration and patient care. When the mean total score of the eight faculty members predicted to have total scores below the group mean was compared with the mean total score of the nine faculty members predicted to have total scores above the group mean, the difference was significant (p < .0001). For the former, every score in each category was below the mean, with the exception of one faculty member's score in one category. Of the latter, eight had higher scores in teaching and four had higher scores in teaching and research combined.
CONCLUSION: This system provides a quantitative method for the equal recognition of faculty productivity in a number of areas, and it may be useful as a starting point for other academic units exploring similar issues.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9311321     DOI: 10.1097/00001888-199709000-00014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  8 in total

1.  Quantifying physician teaching productivity using clinical relative value units.

Authors:  M M Yeh; D F Cahill
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Rewarding teaching faculty with a reimbursement plan.

Authors:  G W Rouan; R G Wones; J Tsevat; J H Galla; J W Dorfmeister; R G Luke
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 3.  Effects of assessing the productivity of faculty in academic medical centres: a systematic review.

Authors:  Elie A Akl; Joerg J Meerpohl; Dany Raad; Giulia Piaggio; Manlio Mattioni; Marco G Paggi; Aymone Gurtner; Stefano Mattarocci; Rizwan Tahir; Paola Muti; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2012-05-28       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Commentary: the relative research unit: providing incentives for clinician participation in research activities.

Authors:  Peter J Embi; Joel Tsevat
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 6.893

5.  Academic productivity in surgical oncology: Where is the bar set for those training the next generation?

Authors:  Christopher J LaRocca; Paul Wong; Oliver S Eng; Mustafa Raoof; Susanne G Warner; Laleh G Melstrom
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2018-08-19       Impact factor: 3.454

6.  Evaluating Nonclinical Performance of the Academic Pathologist: A Comprehensive, Scalable, and Flexible System for Leadership Use.

Authors:  Austin Blackburn Wiles; Michael O Idowu; Charles V Clevenger; Celeste N Powers
Journal:  Acad Pathol       Date:  2018-02-01

7.  Measuring the academic value of academic medical centers: describing a methodology for developing an evaluation model at one Academic Medical Center.

Authors:  Rafael Hod; Oded Maimon; Eyal Zimlichman
Journal:  Isr J Health Policy Res       Date:  2019-08-05

Review 8.  Academic Clinicians' Workload Challenges and Burnout Analysis.

Authors:  Aussama K Nassar; Abdul Waheed; Faiz Tuma
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2019-11-08
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.