Dataset Information

Practice Characteristics and Job Satisfaction of Private Practice and Academic Surgeons.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Private practice and academic surgery careers vary significantly in their daily routine, compensation schemes, and definition of productivity. Data are needed regarding the practice characteristics and job satisfaction of these career paths for surgeons and trainees to make informed career decisions and to identify modifiable factors that may be associated with the health of the surgical workforce.

Objective

To obtain and compare the differences in practice characteristics and career satisfaction measures between academic and private practice surgeons.

Design, setting, and participants

In this cross-sectional survey performed from June 4 to August 1, 2018, an online survey accommodating smartphone, tablet, and desktop formats was distributed by email to 25 748 surgeons who were actively practicing fellows of the American College of Surgeons; had completed a general surgery residency or categorical fellowship in plastic, cardiothoracic, or vascular surgery; and had an active email address on file.

Main outcomes and measures

Demographic, training, and current practice characteristics were obtained, and satisfaction measures were measured on a 5-point Likert scale and compared by surgeon type. Nonresponse weights adjusted for respondent sex, age, and presence of subspecialty training between respondents and the total surveyed American College of Surgeons population.

Results

There were 3807 responses (15% response rate) from surgeons: 1735 academic surgeons (1390 men [80%]; median age, 53 years [interquartile range (IQR), 44-61 years]) and 1464 private practice surgeons (1276 men [87%]; median age, 56 years [IQR, 48-62 years]); 589 surgeons who reported being neither an academic surgeon nor a private practice surgeon and 19 surgeons who did not respond to questions on their practice type were excluded. Academic surgeons reported working a median of 59 hours weekly (IQR, 38-65 hours) compared with 57 hours weekly (IQR, 45-65 hours) for private practice surgeons. Academic surgeons reported more weekly hours performing nonclinical work than did private practice surgeons (24 hours [IQR, 14-38 hours] vs 9 hours [IQR, 4-17 hours]; P < .001). Academic surgeons were more likely than private practice surgeons to be satisfied with their career as a surgeon (1448 of 1706 [85%] vs 1109 of 1420 [78%]; P < .001) and their financial compensation (997 of 1703 [59%] vs 546 of 1416 [39%]; P < .001). Academic surgeons were less likely than private practice surgeons to feel that competition with other surgeons is a threat to financial security (341 of 1705 [20%] vs 559 of 1422 [39%]; P < .001) and less likely to feel that malpractice experience has decreased job satisfaction (534 of 1703 [31%] vs 686 of 1413 [49%]; P < .001).

Conclusions and relevance

This study suggests that, although overall surgeon satisfaction was high, academic surgeons reported higher career satisfaction on several measures when compared with private practice surgeons. Advocacy for private practice surgeons is important to encourage career longevity and sustain US surgeon workforce needs.

SUBMITTER: Mahoney ST

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7745132 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Job satisfaction of doctors is an important factor determining quality and performance of a health system. The aim of this study was to assess job satisfaction among doctors of the public and private primary care clinics in Malaysia and evaluate factors that could influence the job satisfaction rating. METHODS:This study was part of the Quality and Costs of Primary Care (QUALICOPC) Malaysia, a cross-sectional survey conducted between August 2015 and June 2016 in Malaysia. Data was collected from doctors recruited from public and private primary care clinics using a standardised questionnaire. Comparisons were made between doctors working in public and private clinics, and logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors influencing the likelihood of job satisfaction outcomes. RESULTS:A total of 221 doctors from the public and 239 doctors from the private sector completed the questionnaire. Compared to private doctors, a higher proportion of public doctors felt they were being overloaded with the administrative task (59.7% vs 36.0%) and part of the work does not make sense (33.9% vs 18.4%). Only 62.9% of public doctors felt that there was a good balance between effort and reward while a significantly higher proportion (85.8%) of private doctors reported the same. Over 80% of doctors in both sectors indicated continued interest in their job and agreed that being a doctor is a well-respected job. Logistic regression analysis showed public-private sector and practice location (urban-rural) to be significantly associated with work satisfaction outcomes. CONCLUSION:A higher proportion of public doctors experienced pressure from administrative tasks and felt that part of their work does not make sense than their colleague in the private sector. At the same time, the majority of private doctors reported positive outcome on effort-and-reward balance compared to only one third of public doctors. The finding suggests that decreasing administrative workload and enhancing work-based supports might be the most effective ways to improve job satisfaction of primary care doctors because these are some of the main aspects of the job that doctors, especially in public clinics, are most unhappy with.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:To fill the void created by insufficient dental terminologies, a multi-institutional workgroup was formed among members of the Consortium for Oral Health Research and Informatics to develop the Dental Diagnostic System (DDS) in 2009. The adoption of dental diagnosis terminologies by providers must be accompanied by rigorous usability and validity assessments to ensure their effectiveness in practice. OBJECTIVES:The primary objective of this study was to describe the utilization and correct use of the DDS over a 4-y period. METHODS:Electronic health record data were amassed from 2013 to 2016 where diagnostic terms and Current Dental Terminology procedure code pairs were adjudicated by calibrated dentists. With the resultant data, we report on the 4-y utilization and validity of the DDS at 5 dental institutions. Utilization refers to the proportion of instances that diagnoses are documented in a structured format, and validity is defined as the frequency of valid pairs divided by the number of all treatment codes entered. RESULTS:Nearly 10 million procedures ( n = 9,946,975) were documented at the 5 participating institutions between 2013 and 2016. There was a 1.5-fold increase in the number of unique diagnoses documented during the 4-y period. The utilization and validity proportions of the DDS had statistically significant increases from 2013 to 2016 ( P < 0.0001). Academic dental sites were more likely to document diagnoses associated with orthodontic and restorative procedures, while the private dental site was equally likely to document diagnoses associated with all procedures. Overall, the private dental site had significantly higher utilization and validity proportions than the academic dental sites. CONCLUSION:The results demonstrate an improvement in utilization and validity of the DDS terminology over time. These findings also yield insight into the factors that influence the usability, adoption, and validity of dental terminologies, raising the need for more focused training of dental students. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT:Ensuring that providers use standardized methods for documentation of diagnoses represents a challenge within dentistry. The results of this study can be used by clinicians when evaluating the utility of diagnostic terminologies embedded within the electronic health record.