An incentive plan for professional fee collections at an indigent-care teaching hospital.

The authors describe the implementation and development of an incentive plan to improve professional fee collections at an indigent-care teaching hospital. They theorized that an incentive plan based on relative value unit (RVU) productivity would increase billings and collections of professional fees. Unique RVU targets were set for individual services based on the number of faculty full-time equivalents and average reported productivity for academic physicians by specialty. The incentive plan was based on the level of expected faculty billings, measured in RVUs, for each department. A "base + incentive" model was used, with the base budget being distributed monthly throughout the year, and the incentive held as a "withhold" to be paid at the year's end only if the billing target in RVUs was met. Additionally, a task force worked with physician billing office and the hospital to improve collections. In the first year after implementation of the system was in place, important increases were noted in total RVU productivity (30.5% over the previous year) and in collections (49.5% over the previous year). Sixteen of 23 departments exceeded their incentive targets, and it was possible to make distributions of professional fees to those departments, to be used within the hospital system to enhance clinical services. Moreover, the plan created an overall positive attitude toward billings and documentation of faculty activities. The authors believe that this kind of incentive plan will be increasingly important for academic faculty working in public hospital systems.     

Improving clinical productivity in the academic setting: a novel incentive plan based on utility theory.

PURPOSE: Academic internal medicine practices face growing challenges to financial viability due to high overhead, competing institutional missions, and suboptimal physician productivity. The authors describe the development of a clinical incentive plan for a group of academic subspecialty physicians at the Dana Clinic, an outpatient setting at Yale School of Medicine, and report on results of the first year's experience under the plan. METHOD: Utility theory was used to assess the risk profile of clinic faculty and identify incentive payments that would optimize faculty benefit or "utility" while minimizing departmental costs. Under the plan, physicians who reached a productivity target based on work Relative Value Units (wRVUs) between October 2003 and November 2004 had overhead costs covered and received a fixed payment to support salary; additional incentive payments were available for those exceeding the target. Physicians failing to reach the target were responsible for their own overhead costs and received no fixed payment. Physician productivity as measured by wRVU per full-time equivalent (FTE) was compared for the year prior to, and the year following, incentive plan introduction. RESULTS: Forty-seven members of eight academic sections were included in the analysis. Median productivity improved by 34%, with 42 of 47 physicians showing improvement. Significant improvements were also noted in collections (62%) and visit volume (23%), and shifts were observed in coding patterns. CONCLUSIONS: The unique threshold-based structure of the incentive plan, as determined through utility theory modeling, as well as permitting physicians to choose how to achieve the wRVU target were key features of its success, resulting in improved productivity without increasing practice resources or faculty salaries.     

Primary care compensation at an academic medical center: a model for the mixed-payer environment.

The authors' academic medical center, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, developed a primary care physician (PCP) salary incentive program for employed academic physicians. This program, first implemented in 1999, was needed to meet the financial imperatives placed on the institution by managed care and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997; its goal was to create a set of incentives for PCPs that is consistent with the mission of the academic center and helps motivate and reward PCP's work. The program sought to simultaneously increase productivity while optimizing resource utilization in a mixed-payer environment. The salary incentive program uses work relative-value units (wRVUs) as the measure of productivity. In addition to productivity-derived base pay, bonus incentives are added for efficient medical management, quality of care, teaching, and seniority. The authors report that there was significant concern from several members of the physician staff before the plan was implemented; they felt that the institution's PCPs were already operating at maximum clinical capacity. However, after the first year of operation of this plan, there was an overall 20% increase in PCP productivity. Increases were observed in all PCP subgroups when stratified by professional experience, clinical time commitment, and practice location. The authors conclude that the program has succeeded in giving incentives for academic PCPs to achieve under the growing demands for revenue self-sufficiency, managed care performance, quality of care, and academic commitment.     

A national collaboration to disseminate skills for outpatient teaching in internal medicine: program description and preliminary evaluation.

The shift of clinical care and teaching to outpatient settings has challenged ambulatory and community-based teachers. To address this challenge, U.S. internal medicine organizations devised "Faculty Development for General Internal Medicine: Generalist Faculty Teaching in Ambulatory Settings," a national program to train leaders to create local faculty development projects. In 1999, teams from all 386 internal medicine training institutions were invited to apply. Participation required an acceptable plan for a local project and inclusion of an institutional leader, residency or clerkship director, and a community-based faculty member on the project team. Team members attended one of three national training conferences held in 1999 and 2000 that included plenary sessions, workshops, and team meetings. Participants were invited to a wrap-up conference to present their accomplishments. One hundred ten teams from 57 university and 53 non-university hospitals attended the training conferences; 412 (93%) participants returned conference evaluations. All sessions were rated highly. Participants preferred workshops and team meetings to plenary sessions. Two hundred thirty-five (57%) would have recommended the training conference to colleagues as an outstanding experience; 148 (36%) as a good experience; and 25 (6%) as a satisfactory experience. Forty-nine teams (122 participants) returned for the wrap up conference where 35 teams presented their local faculty development projects. Cost per team trained was US$11,818. This program demonstrated a national desire for training in teaching skills, reached a broad audience of ambulatory-based clinical teachers, provided highly rated faculty development conferences in teaching skills, and facilitated development of a variety of local projects at modest expense. Partnerships were forged between academic leaders and community-based teachers.     

The impact of a program for systematically recognizing and rewarding academic performance.

PURPOSE: To describe an academic performance incentive system (APIS) and faculty perception of it; explore the impacts of incentive level, faculty rank, clinical practice volume, and administrative responsibility on academic productivity; and describe the APIS's use in maintaining congruence between department mission and activities. METHOD: A list of teaching, research, and academic service activities was developed, which full-time faculty (n = 33) used to report activities. Clinical faculty members received incentive income based on credits earned. APIS initially distributed 1% of practice plan receipts (subsequently increased to 3% and then 5%). Productivity was measured by differences in APIS points achieved. Satisfaction of all faculty participants was measured by survey. RESULTS: Faculty members (n = 20) who participated throughout averaged 22 credits per month (nine to 42 credits), and quarterly incentive bonuses ranged from 145 US dollars to 6,128 US dollars. Average credits earned per month were 24 for the 1% incentive, 23 for the 3% incentive, and 20 for the 5% incentive. Faculty members with administrative responsibilities were as productive academically as were their non-administrative counterparts. Senior faculty members were as productive as junior faculty. Faculty members who were more productive clinically were more productive academically. Seventy percent of respondents reported they were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the APIS. Seventy-eight percent felt that the APIS accurately reflected their academic productivity. Most respondents (81%) felt that the amount of money allocated to the incentive system was appropriate (15% felt it should be increased and one respondent recommended reduction). CONCLUSIONS: The APIS system has been well accepted by faculty and allows for data-driven discussion of the department's mission and activities.     

Market competition and patient-oriented research: the results of a national survey of medical school faculty.

PURPOSE: To understand the effect of market competition on patient-oriented research at U.S. medical schools and teaching hospitals. METHOD: From a multi-stage stratified, random sample, the authors surveyed 3,804 research faculty at 117 U.S. medical schools. The questionnaire assessed five variables, the type of research conducted by the respondent, changes in patient-oriented and non-clinical research in the preceding three years, amount of time spent on patient care, market stage of the respondent's institution, and research productivity. RESULTS: Of the 2,336 faculty who responded (62%), 84% of those conducting patient-oriented research and 80% of those engaged in non-clinical research reported conducting the same amount of research or more in 1996-1997 than in the preceding three years. However, both patient-oriented and non-clinical researchers in the most competitive health care markets and those with high levels of patient care duties were most likely to report decreases in the amounts of such research conducted in the previous three years. Further, researchers reporting such decreases had been as productive in recent years and over their careers as had those who did not report a decrease. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides additional evidence of the negative relationships that exist between high levels of market competition and patient care services on the patient-oriented and non-clinical research missions of teaching hospitals.     

Revising appointment, promotion, and tenure procedures to incorporate an expanded definition of scholarship: the University of Kentucky College of Medicine experience.

Scholarly activity and scholarly productivity are key features of the academic health center (AHC) and the work of college of medicine faculty. Recent changes in the academic environment of the University of Kentucky (UK) College of Medicine led to an examination of its appointment, promotion, and tenure procedures. This, in turn, led to a re-examination of the college's definition of scholarship. This article describes three of UK's scholarship-related challenges, particularly those related to clinical departments. The authors describe some of the new procedures being implemented to address these challenges; these include new faculty designations, clearer articulation of promotion procedures, explicit recognition of multiple forms of scholarship, expectations for investment in junior faculty, and mandatory discussion of faculty success in chairs' annual reviews. Faculty reactions, positive and negative, to these changes in procedures are also presented.     

Effects of performance-based compensation and faculty track on the clinical activity, research portfolio, and teaching mission of a large academic department of medicine.

PURPOSE: Academic departments of medicine must compete effectively for extramural research support and access to patients while preserving their teaching mission. There is not much literature describing plausible mechanisms for ensuring success. The authors describe the design, implementation, and testing of a performance-based compensation plan in a department of medicine that is closely linked to the faculty appointment track. METHOD: Over a three-year period, the changes this plan effected in research portfolio, clinical enterprise, and faculty satisfaction as well as the teaching perceptions of students and housestaff were measured. RESULTS: The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for clinical work grew 40% faster after plan implementation. Federal funding increased at a CAGR that was 170% greater than before. The department halved its award rankings at the National Institutes of Health and faculty satisfaction improved compared with the former method of compensation. Faculty who better understood the plan were more satisfied with the conversion. High measures of teaching quality were maintained by faculty with no apparent change in satisfaction among students or housestaff. CONCLUSIONS: This performance-based compensation plan with its emphasis on the objectives of career orientation and faculty track assignment strengthened the opportunity to grow both clinical productivity and the funded research portfolio.     

Declining critical care research publications by authors from U.S. Institutions, 1990-1999.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the proportion of authors from U.S. institutions to those from non-U.S. institutions has changed for published critical care research in three critical care journals over the past ten years. METHOD: The authors of designated critical care clinical or laboratory investigations published from 1990 to 1999 in the three leading U.S. critical care journals, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Medicine, Chest, and Critical Care Medicine, were evaluated according to the locations of their institutions (U.S. versus non-U.S.) through a review of these publications. RESULTS: The proportion of authorship by investigators from U.S. institutions has declined for critical care research publications from 61% of all authors in 1990 to 41% in 1999 (p < .00001). Statistically significant declines in the proportions of authors from U.S. institutions to those from non-U.S. institutions occurred in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (p < .05) and Critical Care Medicine (p < .00001), but not in Chest (p = .69). CONCLUSIONS: The reasons for the decline in authorship by investigators from U.S. institutions are speculative and likely multifactorial. They are, however, consistent with other published data showing limited non-clinical time allocated for education activities for critical care faculty. Anecdotal concerns expressed by many faculty that rising clinical commitments necessitated by current health care and reimbursement pressures preclude research and educational academic activities are supported by these data.     

An initiative in mentoring to promote residents' and faculty members' careers.

Internal medicine trainees and faculty recognize the value of effective mentoring to help meet the personal and professional needs of residents. However, the paradigm of the mentor-trainee relationship is seriously threatened by increased clinical, research, and administrative demands on both faculty and housestaff. Moreover, the current criteria for promotion in most teaching hospitals emphasize scholarship, rather than citizenship, so activities such as mentoring devolve to a lower priority. In 2000, the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women's/Faulkner Hospital initiated a program to improve the effectiveness of housestaff mentoring and recognize faculty contributions to resident career development. The authors report the feedback received from a survey of the 2002-03 medical housestaff (74% response rate) and describe their experiences with the initiation of this program. Over 90% of the housestaff respondents thought it important that the Department assigns an individual faculty mentor. In practice, time-consuming professional responsibilities made meetings difficult, but most pairs supplemented their interactions with e-mail. Discussions primarily focused on career advice and support. Housestaff thought mentors were helpful and available when needed. The department has established new metrics for recognizing faculty mentoring and now publicly rewards mentoring excellence. Of note, unassigned mentoring has increased since the initiation of this program. The authors conclude that the formal mentoring program has ensured that all trainees are provided with a mentor, which has facilitated faculty-housestaff interactions and increased recognition of faculty contributions to mentoring.     

Results of an academic promotion and career path survey of faculty at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

PURPOSE: Clinician-educator faculty are increasing in numbers in academic medical centers, but their academic advancement is slower than that of research faculty. The authors sought to quantify the magnitude of this difference in career advancement and to explore the characteristics of faculty that might explain the difference. METHOD: In 1999, a questionnaire was administered to all MD faculty at the rank of instructor and above (259) in the Department of Medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. RESULTS: A total of 180 (69%) faculty returned questionnaires. Of these, 178 identified with one of four career paths: basic researcher (46), clinical researcher (69), academic clinician (38), or teacher-clinician (25). Career path did not differ by age, gender, rank, years on faculty, hours worked per week, family responsibility, or global work satisfaction. After adjusting for age, gender, time at rank, and work satisfaction, the odds of being at a higher rank were 85% less for academic clinicians (odds ratio,.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.40) and 69% less for teacher-clinicians (odds ratio,.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.88) than for basic researchers. Clinical researchers did not differ from basic researchers in the likelihood of being at higher rank. Similarly, compared with basic research faculty, the adjusted odds of being more satisfied with progress towards academic promotion were 92% lower for academic clinicians and 87% lower for teacher-clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician-educator faculty were less likely to be at higher rank at this institution than were faculty in research paths. Differences in rank may be explained by lower rank at hire for faculty in these career paths, time available for scholarly activities, or other resources available to support scholarship. Retaining clinician-educators will require further exploration of barriers to promotion inherent to these career paths and methods of modifying these barriers.     

Scholarship in teaching: an imperative for the 21st century.

At some medical schools broader definitions of scholarship have emerged along with corresponding changes in their academic reward systems. Such situations are not common, however. The definition of scholarship generally applied by medical schools is unnecessarily narrow and excludes areas of legitimate academic activity and productivity that are vital to the fulfillment of the school's educational mission. The authors maintain that creative teaching with effectiveness that is rigorously substantiated, educational leadership with results that are demonstrable and broadly felt, and educational methods that advance learners' knowledge are consistent with the traditional definition of scholarship. Faculty whose educational activities fulfill the criteria above are scholars and must be recognized by promotion. The authors specifically address scholarship in education, focusing on teaching and other learning-related activities rather than on educational research, which may be assessed and rewarded using the same forms of evidence as basic science or clinical research. They build on Boyer's work, which provides a vocabulary for discussing the assumptions and values that underlie the roles of faculty as academicians. Next, they apply Glassick et al.'s criteria for judging scholarly work to faculty members' educational activities to establish a basis for recognition and reward consistent with those given for other forms of scholarship. Finally, the authors outline the organizational infrastructure needed to support scholars in education.     

Measuring the costs of primary care education in the ambulatory setting.

In 1995, the authors obtained cost, operations, and educational activity data from 98 ambulatory care sites across the United States in which primary care teaching was occurring and compared those data with the corresponding data from 84 ambulatory care sites where no teaching was going on. The teaching sites in the sample were found to have 24-36% higher operating costs than the non-teaching sites. This overall difference in costs is approximately the same difference in costs earlier estimated for university teaching hospitals compared with non-teaching hospitals. These costs are shared by all involved in the ambulatory education process: sponsors, sites, and faculty. In a related finding, the authors discovered that 30-50% of all ambulatory care sites thought not to be involved in education are in fact teaching at a high level of involvement. Further research into not only the costs but the value of education in the clinical setting is encouraged. The authors also hope that the publication of this report will encourage accrediting bodies and professional organizations to improve the information available about ambulatory care training in general.     

Role modeling humanistic behavior: learning bedside manner from the experts.

PURPOSE: Humanistic care is regarded as important by patients and professional accrediting agencies, but little is known about how attitudes and behaviors in this domain are taught in clinical settings. To answer this question, the authors studied how excellent clinical teachers impart the behaviors and attitudes consistent with humanistic care to their learners. METHOD: Using an observational, qualitative methodology, the authors studied 12 clinical faculty identified by the medical residents enrolled from 2003 to 2004 as excellent teachers of humanistic care on the inpatient medical services at four medical universities in the United States (University of Minnesota Medical School, Emory University, University of Rochester School of Medicine, and Baylor College of Medicine). Observations were conducted by the authors using standardized field notes. After each encounter, the authors debriefed patients, learners (residents and medical students), and the teaching physicians in semistructured interviews. RESULTS: Clinical teachers taught primarily by role modeling. Although they were highly aware of their significance as role models, they did not typically address the human dimensions of care overtly. Despite the common themes of role modeling identified, each clinical teacher exhibited unique teaching strategies. These clinical teachers identified self-reflection as the primary method by which they developed and refined their teaching strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Role modeling is the primary method by which excellent clinical teachers try to teach medical residents humanistic aspects of medical care. Although clinical teachers develop unique teaching styles and strategies, common themes are shared and could be used for the future development of clinical faculty.     

Promoting research in medical education at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.

Over the past seven years, educational innovations and scholarship have flourished at the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) School of Medicine. Prior to 1998, there was no infrastructure to support educational research and yet a few faculty members published in medical education journals and were active in national professional associations. With the initiation of curriculum reform in 1998, a great deal of excitement about education was generated and innovative new educational programs were envisioned. These changes became opportunities for educational scholarship. With the development of an Office of Medical Education in 1997 and the Haile T. Debas Academy of Medical Educators in 2001, the infrastructure was in place to expand educational research and the scholarship of teaching. The components of this support include educational leadership, faculty development, the Teaching Scholars Program, the Office of Educational Research and Development, the Academy, a Fellowship in Medical Education Research, collaborative research, and extramural grants. As a result of these investments, the number of UCSF faculty members who are involved in educational research has increased significantly. There has been a four-fold increase in peer-reviewed articles published in medical education journals and a greater increase in the publication of educational abstracts, editorials, chapters, and books, plus presentations at U.S. professional association meetings. In this article, the authors describe the changes that have occurred at UCSF to achieve these results.     

Whither bedside teaching? A focus-group study of clinical teachers.

PURPOSE: Previous reports document diminishing time spent on bedside teaching, with a shift towards conference rooms and corridors. This study explored faculty's perceptions of the barriers to and their strategies for increasing and improving bedside teaching. METHOD: Four focus groups consisting of (1) chief residents, (2) residency program directors, (3) skilled bedside teachers, and (4) a convenience group of other Department of Medicine faculty from the Boston University School of Medicine's affiliated hospitals were held in May 1998. Each session lasted 60-90 minutes. Sessions were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative methods. RESULTS: The most significant barriers reported were (1) declining bedside teaching skills; (2) the aura of bedside teaching, a belief that bedside teachers should possess an almost unattainable level of diagnostic skill that creates intense performance pressure; (3) that teaching is not valued; and (4) erosion of teaching ethic. Focus-group participants suggested the following strategies for addressing these barriers: improve bedside teaching skills through faculty training in clinical skills and teaching methods; reassure clinical faculty that they possess more than adequate bedside skills to educate trainees; establish a learning climate that allows teachers to admit their limitations; and address the undervaluing of teaching on a department level with adequate recognition and rewards for teaching efforts. Skilled teachers, in particular, stated that a bedside teaching ethic could be reestablished by emphasizing its importance and challenging learners to think clinically. CONCLUSIONS: Bedside teaching is regarded as valuable. Some barriers may be overcome by setting realistic faculty expectations, providing incentives for teaching faculty, and establishing ongoing faculty development programs.     

The views of U.S. medical school deans toward academic primary care.

PURPOSE: To understand the views of U.S. medical school deans about their primary care faculties. METHOD: In 2000, the authors mailed a questionnaire containing 43 multipart items to deans of 130 U.S. allopathic medical schools. The questionnaire assessed the deans' attitudes about and evaluation of primary care at their school and their school's efforts to strengthen it. Deans were asked to compare family medicine, general internal medicine, and general pediatrics with nonprimary care clinical departments at their schools. RESULTS: Of the 83 (64%) deans who responded, 82% reported their school had departments or divisions of family medicine, general internal medicine, and general pediatrics. Deans rated general internal medicine and general pediatrics higher than nonprimary care faculty on clinical expertise and productivity (p < .001) and family medicine equivalent to nonprimary care faculty. Deans rated all three primary care faculties superior to nonprimary care faculty for teaching skills (p < .001) and programs (p < .05), but lower than nonprimary care disciplines for research productivity (p < .01) and revenues (p < .001). They rated family medicine and general pediatrics lower for research skills (p < .001), but 73% of deans stated research was equally important for primary care and nonprimary care departments. Deans considered overall financial resources to be equivalent for primary care and nonprimary care departments, but 77% of deans felt primary care departments or divisions needed financial support from the medical school to survive. Most deans attempted to strengthen primary care by changing the curriculum to promote primary care and by providing financial support. CONCLUSIONS: Deans ranked primary care faculty high on clinical and teaching measures. Although they considered research to be an important activity for primary care faculty, they evaluated it low relative to nonprimary care departments.     

Obstacles to promotion? Values of women faculty about career success and recognition. Committee on the Status of Women and Minorities, Virginia Commonwealth University, Medical College of Virginia Campus.

PURPOSE: To assess attitudes of female faculty about career progress, resources for career development, and values related to academic success and recognition. METHOD: In 1997, the authors surveyed all faculty at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine and its associated Veterans Affairs Medical Center. RESULTS: Of 918 faculty, 567 (62%) responded to the survey; 33% of the respondents were women. Compared with men, women faculty were less likely to be tenured or at the level of professor, spent more time in clinical activities, had less time for scholarly activity, and reported slower career progress. Women were more likely to report that promotion and tenure criteria had not been reviewed with them. Significant differences were found between female physicians and non-physician faculty; female physicians reported the least time for scholarly activities and poorest understanding of promotion and tenure criteria. When the authors asked faculty how they valued certain indicators of career success, women were less likely to value leadership than were men. Female physicians were less likely to value scholarship and national recognition as indicators of their career success. CONCLUSION: This survey found important differences in career progress of male and female faculty, with women reporting less time for career development. In addition, there were differences in values related to career success and recognition, which were most pronounced for female physicians. These differences may have an important impact on promotion for women in general and particularly for female physicians.