Judging surgical research: how should we evaluate performance and measure value?

OBJECTIVE

To establish criteria to evaluate performance in surgical research, and to suggest strategies to optimize research in the future.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Research is an integral component of the academic mission, focusing on important clinical problems, accounting for surgical advances, and providing training and mentoring for young surgeons. With constraints on healthcare resources, there is increasing pressure to generate clinical revenues at the expense of the time and effort devoted to surgical research. An approach that would assess the value of research would allow prioritization of projects. Further, alignment of high-priority research projects with clinical goals would optimize research gains and maximize the clinical enterprise.

METHODS

The authors reviewed performance criteria applied to industrial research and modified these criteria to apply to surgical research. They reviewed several programs that align research objectives with clinical goals.

RESULTS

Performance criteria were categorized along several dimensions: internal measures (quality, productivity, innovation, learning, and development), customer satisfaction, market share, and financial indices (cost and profitability). A "report card" was proposed to allow the assessment of research in an individual department or division.

CONCLUSIONS

The department's business strategy can no longer be divorced from its research strategy. Alignment between research and clinical goals will maximize the department's objectives but will create the need to modify existing hierarchical structures and reward systems. Such alignment appears to be the best way to ensure the success of surgical research in the future.