Research centers and institutes in U.S. medical schools: a descriptive analysis.

Research centers and institutes are a common mechanism to organize and facilitate biomedical research at medical schools and universities. The authors report the results of a study on the size, scope, and range of activities of 604 research centers and institutes at research-intensive U.S. medical schools and their parent universities. Centers and institutes with primary missions of patient care, education, or outreach were not included. The findings indicate that, in addition to research, centers and institutes are involved in a range of activities, including education, service, and technology transfer. The centers and institutes the authors studied were more interdisciplinary than those included in previous studies on this topic. Most research centers and institutes did not have authority comparable to academic departments. Only 22% of centers directly appointed faculty members, and most center directors reported to a medical school dean or a department chair. A small group of centers and institutes ("power centers"), however, reported to a university president or provost, and may have considerable power and influence in academic decision making and resource allocation. Two main types of centers and institutes emerge from this research. The first type, which includes the vast of majority of centers, is modest in its scope and marginal in its influence. The second type--with greater amounts of funding, larger staffs, and direct access to institutional decisionmakers--may have a more significant role in the organization and governance of the medical school and university and in the ways that researchers interact within and across academic divisions.     

Developing a new faculty practice plan with a model for funds flow between the hospital and the plan.

The majority of academic health centers are experiencing significant difficulties balancing their research, teaching, and clinical missions while maintaining adequate financial performance. One of the major areas under intense scrutiny is the specific financial relationship between the hospital and the full-time faculty. A realignment of the funds flow between these two entities is becoming essential to the future viability and ultimate survival of many health systems. The authors describe a model that evolved as part of the integration of the faculty practice plans of their institutions when they merged into a single health system, and that provides a framework that specifically addresses these issues of funds flow. The model includes (1) a strong partnership between the hospital and the full-time faculty; (2) a governance model of chairmen, faculty, and administration; (3) flexibility for the department chairs to set salaries and make significant financial decisions relative to their departmental performances; (4) a specific formula for funds flow for graduate medical education dollars from the hospital to the clinical departments; (5) local front-end charge capture and back-end central collections; and (6) clear and consistent definitions of revenue and expense items for both partners.     

Mission-based budgeting: removing a graveyard.

Many activities in today's medical schools no longer have medical students' education as their central reason for existence. Faculty are hired primarily to provide clinical service or to make discoveries, with the role of educator of secondary importance. Budgeting in medical schools has not evolved in concert with these changing roles of faculty. The cost of medical students' education is still calculated as if all faculty were hired primarily to teach medical students and their other activities were to support this "central" mission. Most medical schools still mix revenues without regard to intent and cannot accurately determine costs because they confuse expenses with costs. At the University of Florida College of Medicine, a group of administrators, chairpersons, and faculty developed a budgeting process now called mission-based budgeting. This is a three-step process: (1) revenues are prospectively identified for each mission and then aligned with intended purposes; (2) faculty productivity, i.e., faculty effort and its quality, is measured for each of the missions; and (3) productivity is linked to the prospective budget for each mission. This process allows the institution to understand the intent of its revenues, to measure how productive its faculty are, to learn the true costs of its missions, to make wise investment decisions (subsidies), and to justify to various constituents its use of revenues. The authors describe this process, focusing particularly on methods used to develop a comprehensive database for assessment of faculty productivity in education.     

Implementing a simpler approach to mission-based planning in a medical school.

Changes in the education, research, and health care environments have had a major impact on the way in which medical schools fulfill their missions, and mission-based management approaches have been suggested to link the financial information of mission costs and revenues with measures of mission activity and productivity. The authors describe a simpler system, termed Mission-Aligned Planning (MAP), and its development and implementation, during fiscal years 2002 and 2003, at the School of Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Texas. The MAP system merges financial measures and activity measures to allow a broad understanding of the mission activities, to facilitate strategic planning at the school and departmental levels. During the two fiscal years mentioned above, faculty of the school of medicine reported their annual hours spent in the four missions of teaching, research, clinical care, and administration and service in a survey designed by the faculty. A financial profit or loss in each mission was determined for each department by allocation of all departmental expenses and revenues to each mission. Faculty expenses (and related expenses) were allocated to the missions based on the percentage of faculty effort in each mission. This information was correlated with objective measures of mission activities. The assessment of activity allowed a better understanding of the real costs of mission activities by linking salary costs, assumed to be related to faculty time, to the missions. This was a basis for strategic planning and for allocation of institutional resources.     

The academy movement: a structural approach to reinvigorating the educational mission.

Despite its fundamental importance, the educational mission of most medical schools receives far less recognition and support than do the missions of research and patient care. This disparity is based, in part, on the predominance of discipline-based departments, which focus on the more sustainable enterprises of research and patient care. Where departmental teaching is emphasized, it tends to center on trainees directly associated with the department-leaving medical students unsupported. The authors argue that the ongoing erosion of the educational mission will never be reversed unless there are changes in the underlying structure of medical schools. Academies of medical educators are developing at a number of medical schools to advance the school-wide mission of education. The authors describe and compare key features of such organizations at eight medical schools, identified through an informal survey of the Society of Directors of Research in Medical Education, along with direct contacts with specific schools. Although these entities are relatively new, initial assessments suggest that they have already had a major impact on the recognition of teaching efforts by the faculty, fueled curricular reform, promoted educational scholarship, and garnered new resources to support teaching. The academy movement, as a structural approach to change, shows promise for reinvigorating the educational mission of academic medicine.     

Organizational models for medical school-clinical enterprise relationships.

Changes in the organization, financing, and delivery of health care services have prompted medical school leaders to search for new organizational models for linking medical schools, faculty practice groups, affiliated hospitals, and insurers-models that better meet the contemporary challenges of governance and decision making in academic medicine. However, medical school leaders have relatively little information about the range of organizational models that could be adopted, the extent to which particular organizational models are actually used, the conditions under which different organizational models are appropriate, and the ramifications of different organizational models for the academic mission. In this article, the authors offer a typology of eight organizational models that medical school leaders might use to understand and manage their relationships with physicians, hospitals, and other components of clinical delivery systems needed to support and fulfill the academic mission. In addition to illustrating the models with specific examples from the field, the authors speculate about their prevalence, the conditions that favor one over another, and the benefits and drawbacks of each for medical schools. To conclude, they discuss how medical school and clinical enterprise leaders could use the organizational typology to help them develop strategy and manage relationships with each other and their other partners.     

The Academy at Harvard Medical School: nurturing teaching and stimulating innovation.

The Academy at Harvard Medical School, established in 2001, was formed at a critical moment for medical schools in this country. Several decades of enormous growth in the biomedical research and clinical care activities of medical school faculty have resulted in great societal benefit. The unintended consequence has been a decline in faculty time and reward for the educational mission that is unique to a medical school. The impact of this decline is particularly felt now because the explosive growth in the science and technology relevant to medical practice, coupled with dramatic changes in the health care delivery system, calls for new models for the education of the next generation of physicians. The mission of the academy is to renew and reinvigorate the educational mission of Harvard Medical School (HMS). By bringing together a select group of some of the school's most talented and dedicated faculty and providing direct support for their work related to education, the academy has created a unique mechanism for increasing the recognition of teaching contributions of both academy members and the teaching faculty at large, fostering educational innovation, and providing a forum for the exchange of ideas related to medical education that cross departmental and institutional lines. The authors describe the academy's membership criteria, structure, governance, activities, institutional impact, and plans for long-term evaluation, and indicate challenges the academy will face in the future.     

Integration of student-health physicians into U.S. medical schools and their affiliated teaching hospitals.

PURPOSE: To determine whether physicians in the student health services (SHSs) at U.S. medical schools and their affiliated teaching hospitals, referred to here as academic medical centers (AMCs), have unique opportunities for integration into AMCs that do not exist for physician-faculty at SHSs on purely academic campuses. METHOD: A survey of SHS offices at the 124 U.S. medical schools was conducted in the spring of 1999. The questionnaire asked about the reporting relationships of the SHS within the AMC, whether the student-health physicians had academic appointments within the AMC, and whether these physicians participated in the AMC's clinical services, administration, research, or teaching activities. RESULTS: There were 116 (94%) responses (not all responses were complete and eight were excluded because their campuses offered no formal SHS). Approximately half of the SHSs (52/107, 49%) reported to their AMCs. Student-health physicians with career-track appointments were more likely to be found at SHSs reporting to AMCs (35/58, 60%) than at SHSs reporting solely to a division of student affairs (20/58, 34%). Having a career-track appointment increased the likelihood of the student-health physicians' attending on the wards (34/59, 58%), seeing private patients in an AMC's faculty practice (40/59, 68%), participating in administrative activities for an AMC (50/56, 89%), and participating in research activities (36/57, 63%). CONCLUSIONS: Student health services that reported to their AMCs were more likely to have faculty with career-track appointments, and these appointments were more likely to result in the integration of student-health physicians into their AMC's clinical services, administration, and research activities. Career-track appointments, however, had no influence on whether teaching activities occurred within the SHS. Fully integrating student-health physicians into the AMC's activities enhances outcomes for both the SHS and its AMC.     

Safety in the academic medical center: transforming challenges into ingredients for improvement.

Patient safety has emerged as an important challenge to the leadership of academic medical centers (i.e., teaching hospitals with significant research activity). This article describes the evidence regarding patient safety at academic medical centers (AMCs) and the special circumstances of AMCs that create challenges and opportunities for making improvements. While the research on the relative safety of patients in AMCs compared to other types of hospitals is sparse, it seems clear that AMCs in general do not stand out as models of patient safety. AMCs are unique as health care providers because of the multiple consequences of their three missions: patient care, research, and teaching. Aspects of these missions can serve to both enhance an AMC's ability to address safety issues and at the same time create unique and challenging barriers. For example, the research enterprise may distract managers' focus on safety issues but at the same time provide a wealth of highly trained talent for investigating and reducing safety problems. By addressing these challenges, AMCs have the opportunity, even the obligation, to be both the source of new knowledge on health care safety as well as the transmitter of new skills in safe patient care for the health care providers of the future.     

The effects of a changing environment on relationships between medical schools and their parent universities.

Medical schools differ from other university graduate schools in that community settings, hospitals, and ambulatory care facilities are required for medical education, and most of these settings are either owned by or closely affiliated with the university. Thus, the extraordinary changes in recent years in the organization, delivery, and financing of health care have required the attention not only of the leadership of academic medical centers (i.e., medical schools and their owned or closely affiliated teaching hospitals) but also of the administrators and boards of their parent universities. Many university-wide structures and policies that previously served the medical school well in accomplishing these missions may now be viewed as inflexible by the faculty and administration of the school. Conversely, the historically distant governance and administrative oversight of the medical school has become a concern for some at the university, given the huge budgets of the school, its faculty practice, and its affiliated hospital(s). From information derived mainly from annual visits to 14 medical schools from 1996 through June 2000, the authors review the issues between medical schools and their parent universities and the strategies being used to resolve them. These strategies include changes in the governance, organization, and management of the medical school, such as unified authority for health affairs, reengineered administrative systems, and increased autonomy in decision making. The authors conclude that these strategies appear to be working on behalf of not only the medical school but, in some instances, the university at large. They also comment on possible negative implications of the greater separation of the medical school from its parent university.     

Faculty practice plans: the organization and characteristics of academic medical practice

The contemporary academic medical center is a complex organization providing medical and other professional health education, biomedical and behavioral research, and a comprehensive range of patient care services. This paper presents data from the Association of American Medical Colleges' 1989 survey of 125 member faculty practice plans. The survey data showed that 62% of the 74 responding plans were units or associations within the medical school corporate structure. Plans were organized along a broad continuum from the autonomous, departmental model with decentralized governance and management to the group model with centralized governance and management. The growth of managed care, increased competition, and a greater reliance by the medical school on clinical practice income as a financing source are causing the practice plan to expand beyond billing of professional fees. The survey data showed that 75% of the practice plans operated satellite centers, and 61% planned to build new ambulatory care facilities in order to expand and improve services to patients. The practice plans also have adapted to changes in third-party reimbursement and are establishing mechanisms to negotiate managed care contracts involving multiple clinical departments to increase referrals and maintain patient shares; 86% of the plans participate in at least one managed-care organization. The role of the practice plan will continue to evolve in response to the needs of the academic medical center for a cooperative and supportive environment in which to conduct its traditional missions of teaching, research, and patient care.     

The impact of centers and institutes on faculty life: findings from a study of basic science and internal medicine faculty at research-intensive medical schools.

PURPOSE: To examine the impact of organized research centers on faculty productivity and work life for basic science and internal medicine faculty at research-intensive medical schools. METHOD: In 2005, the authors administered a questionnaire to a random stratified sample of full-time faculty in basic science and internal medicine departments at the top 40 research-intensive U.S. medical schools. The survey instrument asked faculty about the extent of their involvement in centers and institutes, the direction and extent of their activities, and their satisfaction with various dimensions of work. RESULTS: A total of 778 faculty members completed the questionnaire (72.0%). Basic science faculty with center affiliations produced more research publications and grants while devoting comparable effort to teaching as their non-center-affiliated peers. These faculty reported greater dissatisfaction in workload and in the mix of their activities. Internal medicine MD center-affiliated faculty were more productive in research activities and spent less effort in patient care and more effort in research than their non-center-affiliated peers. These faculty were more satisfied with promotion, opportunities for research, and the pace of their professional advancement. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that faculty from different departments and with different ranks and backgrounds interact with centers and institutes in multiple ways. For basic science faculty, center involvement appears to be an addition to, not a substitute for, their usual departmental obligations. For internal medicine MD faculty, center involvement appears to serve as an opportunity for protected effort in research away from the demands of clinical practice.     

The impact of the lack of health insurance: how should academic medical centers and medical schools respond?

The lack of health insurance has significant deleterious effects on the health of individual patients and creates substantial financial pressure on health care institutions. Despite the historical role of academic medical centers (AMCs) and medical schools in caring for the uninsured, financial shortfalls have increased pressure on these institutions to restrict care of this population. Limiting care of the uninsured, however, conflicts with the ethical foundations of academic medicine and risks further harm to the health of this population. Instead of restricting care, the effects of uninsurance should be mitigated through the joint efforts of medical schools and AMCs by measuring clinical work using work Relative Value Units rather than collections; recognizing faculty who provide care for the uninsured in the promotions process; adjusting billing rates for clinical services according to patients' ability to pay; delivering one standard of care irrespective of insurance status; continuing to evaluate the impact of uninsurance and intervention strategies; providing leadership in measuring and improving the quality of care; ensuring that trainees and the public are familiar with the effects of a lack of health insurance; and assisting safety net providers by providing educational materials pertinent to their respective patient populations and more fully integrating these providers into the academic community.Although all physicians in the private and public sectors should share in the care of the uninsured, academic medicine must remain faithful to its historical role of providing care to the uninsured and should improve the health of the uninsured through a proactive strategy involving advocacy, clinical care, education, and research.     

The Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics of the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania: an organizational model for clinical research in a school of medicine

A new model for the conduct of clinical research was established at the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) School of Medicine, now the Perelman School of Medicine, through the development of the interdepartmental Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics in 1993 and the basic science Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology in 1994. The authors describe the development and evolution of these novel structures.Five key objectives were achieved with these structures' creation: (1) Clinical faculty have the opportunity to be identified as both clinicians and epidemiologists, (2) nonclinical faculty have an academic "home," (3) clinical trainees are now educated in population medicine, which promotes its incorporation into their clinical practice, (4) population medicine and clinical medicine have become fully integrated, and (5) better epidemiologic research is conducted, informed by clinical insights.Today's center is the primary home for epidemiology and biostatistics at Penn, linking epidemiology, biostatistics, clinical medicine, and the health sciences. The center's core faculty manage their own research programs, conduct primary research in epidemiology and biostatistics, serve as members of collaborative research teams, manage cores and service centers that support research projects, and lead graduate training programs in epidemiology and biostatistics. The department provides an academic home and structure for faculty, provides primary research in epidemiology and biostatistics, supports the center's mission, and provides training in biostatistics. This organizational approach has wide applicability across schools of medicine in the United States and abroad and has been a model for many.     

Medical faculty development: a modern-day odyssey

Academic medical centers (AMCs) are pillars of the community; they provide health care, create jobs, educate biomedical professionals, and engage in research and innovation. To sustain their impact on human health, AMCs must improve the professional satisfaction of their faculty. Here, we describe ways to enhance recruitment, retention, creativity, and productivity of health science faculty.     

The reorganization of basic science departments in U.S. medical schools, 1980-1999.

The evolution of biomedical science and technology over the last 50 years has made biomedical research inherently interdisciplinary. Such changes have led observers to speculate about the ways in which traditional basic science departments in U.S. medical schools are being changed or consolidated. The authors describe their findings from a study that constructed a 20-year longitudinal database (1980-1999) to examine how basic science departments have been reorganized at U.S. medical schools. The data reveal that, in fact, there were fewer basic science departments in the traditional disciplines of anatomy, biochemistry, microbiology, pharmacology, and physiology in 1999 than in 1980. But as biomedical science has developed in an interdisciplinary manner, new basic science departments have been added. The most frequent type of change, however, has been in the renaming of existing departments. Overall, there were more, not fewer, basic science departments and more, not fewer, faculty members in these departments. These changes, taken together with the growth of interdisciplinary research centers and institutes and changing patterns of biomedical PhD training, affect both teaching and research in academic medicine. First, basic scientists are becoming increasingly dissociated from the traditional disciplines around which medical students' education is often organized. Second, the organization of biomedical research is in a state of transition that is responding to advances in scientific knowledge, technology, and targets of opportunity.     

Integrating clinician-educators into Academic Medical Centers: challenges and potential solutions.

During the last decade academic medical centers (AMCs) have hired large numbers of clinician-educators to teach and provide clinical care. However, these clinician-educators often do not advance in academic rank, since excellence in clinical care and teaching alone is not adequate justification for advancement. The authors articulate the problems with the present system of recognition for clinician-educators-i.e., the requirement for regional and national reputation, the lack of reliable measures of clinical and teaching excellence, and the lack of training opportunities for young clinician-educators. They call for solutions, including fundamental changes in promotion criteria (e.g., focus criteria for promotion on clinician-educators' accomplishments within their institutions) and the development of valid and feasible methods to measure outcomes of teaching programs. Further, they recommend the development of a new faculty position, a "clinician-educator researcher," to foster the scholarship of discovery in medical education and clinical practice. Investments in clinician-educator researchers will ultimately help AMCs to achieve their threefold mission-excellence in patient care, teaching, and research.     

Perspective: a road map for academic departments to promote scholarship in quality improvement and patient safety

The fields of quality improvement and patient safety (QI/PS) continue to grow with greater attention and awareness, increased mandates and incentives, and more research. Academic medical centers and their academic departments have a long-standing tradition for innovation and scholarship within a multifaceted mission to provide patient care, educate the next generation, and conduct research. Academic departments are well positioned to lead the science, education, and application of QI/PS efforts nationally. However, meaningful engagement of faculty and trainees to lead this work is a major barrier. Understanding and developing programs that foster QI/PS work while also promoting a scholarly focus can generate the incentives and acknowledgment to help elevate QI/PS into the academic mission. Academic departments should define and articulate a QI/PS strategy, develop individual and departmental capacity to lead scholarly QI/PS programs, streamline and support access to data, share information and improve collaboration, and recognize and elevate academic success in QI/PS. A commitment to these goals can also serve to cultivate important collaborations between academic departments and their respective medical centers, divisions, and training programs. Ultimately, the elevation of QI/PS into the academic mission can improve the quality and safety of our health care delivery systems.     

Health maintenance organizations and medical education: breaking the barriers

Academic medical centers (AMCs) are under pressure to increase ambulatory medical education, but their capacity for such teaching is limited. Health maintenance organizations (HMOs) are a large and growing institutional setting that could participate in clinical education. Until now, relatively few HMOs and AMCs have reached agreements about teaching, because traditional suspicions have blocked collaboration. Responding to a case prepared as the basis of discussion, about 450 academics and HMO medical directors explored the barriers to and incentives for cooperation between AMCs and HMOs in clinical education. The two groups identified different issues as barriers to collaboration, leaving considerable room to negotiate agreements. AMCs, especially, need to be prepared to offer meaningful academic and financial inducements to attract HMOs to participate in teaching.