Seymann Gregory B, Southern William, Burger Alfred, Brotman Daniel J, Chakraborti Chayan, Harrison Rebecca, Parekh Vikas, Sharpe Bradley A, Pile James, Hunt Daniel, Leykum Luci K
Department of Medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, California.
Department of Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York.
J Hosp Med. 2016 Oct;11(10):708-713. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2603. Epub 2016 May 18.
As clinical demands increase, understanding the features that allow academic hospital medicine programs (AHPs) to thrive has become increasingly important.
To develop and validate a quantifiable definition of academic success for AHPs.
A working group of academic hospitalists was formed. The group identified grant funding, academic promotion, and scholarship as key domains reflective of success, and specific metrics and approaches to assess these domains were developed. Self-reported data on funding and promotion were available from a preexisting survey of AHP leaders, including total funding/group, funding/full-time equivalent (FTE), and number of faculty at each academic rank. Scholarship was defined in terms of research abstracts presented over a 2-year period. Lists of top performers in each of the 3 domains were constructed. Programs appearing on at least 1 list (the SCHOLAR cohort [SuCcessful HOspitaLists in Academics and Research]) were examined. We compared grant funding and proportion of promoted faculty within the SCHOLAR cohort to a sample of other AHPs identified in the preexisting survey.
Seventeen SCHOLAR programs were identified, with a mean age of 13.2 years (range, 6-18 years) and mean size of 36 faculty (range, 18-95). The mean total grant funding/program was $4 million (range, $0-$15 million), with mean funding/FTE of $364,000 (range, $0-$1.4 million); both were significantly higher than the comparison sample. The majority of SCHOLAR faculty (82%) were junior, a lower percentage than the comparison sample. The mean number of research abstracts presented over 2 years was 10.8 (range, 9-23).
Our approach effectively identified a subset of successful AHPs. Despite the relative maturity and large size of the programs in the SCHOLAR cohort, they were comprised of relatively few senior faculty members and varied widely in the quantity of funded research and scholarship. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:708-713. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.
随着临床需求的增加,了解促使学术性医院医学项目(AHP)蓬勃发展的特征变得愈发重要。
为AHP制定并验证一个可量化的学术成功定义。
成立了一个由学术性医院医生组成的工作小组。该小组确定了拨款资金、学术晋升和学术成果作为反映成功的关键领域,并制定了评估这些领域的具体指标和方法。关于资金和晋升的自我报告数据来自对AHP负责人的一项现有调查,包括总资金/小组、资金/全职等效人员(FTE)以及每个学术职级的教员数量。学术成果根据两年内发表的研究摘要来定义。构建了这三个领域中每个领域的优秀者名单。对至少出现在一份名单上的项目(学者队列[学术和研究方面成功的医院名单])进行了研究。我们将学者队列中的拨款资金和晋升教员比例与在现有调查中确定的其他AHP样本进行了比较。
确定了17个学者项目,平均年龄为13.2岁(范围为6 - 18岁),平均规模为36名教员(范围为18 - 95名)。每个项目的平均总拨款资金为400万美元(范围为0 - 1500万美元),资金/FTE平均为36.4万美元(范围为0 - 140万美元);两者均显著高于比较样本。大多数学者教员(82%)为初级教员,这一比例低于比较样本。两年内发表的研究摘要平均数量为10.8篇(范围为9 - 23篇)。
我们的方法有效地识别出了成功的AHP子集。尽管学者队列中的项目相对成熟且规模较大,但它们的高级教员数量相对较少,获得资助的研究和学术成果数量差异很大。《医院医学杂志》2016年;11:708 - 713。© 2016医院医学协会。