Dataset Information

Do Academic Health Care Systems Really Value Education? A Survey of Academic Plastic Surgeons.

ABSTRACT: Background:Although education is critical to the mission of academic medical centers in the United States, it is often not quantified and monetized as are their research and clinical missions. We undertook this survey to assess the perceived valuation of educational endeavors of plastic surgeon faculty at the U.S. academic medical centers. Methods:A survey using Qualtrics software (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) was distributed to faculty members of the American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons by electronic mail in February 2015. A total of 16 questions included both demographic information and Likert-item questions of perception of valuation of educational activities. For analysis, responses were grouped according to an adapted Net Promoter Score including "unsupportive" (0-6), "neutral" (7-8), and "supportive" (9-10). Results:Sixty-five surveys were completed out of a total of 406, with an overall response rate of 16%. Kruskal-Wallis statistical analysis demonstrated that region and rank were not significant in perception of hospital or departmental support for educational activities. Respondents rated their departments as more supportive than their institutions (P < 0.05), and average perceived value rating of institutions was "unsupportive." Financial support was associated with higher ratings with respect to support of institutions and departments. Mid-career faculty displayed a trend toward lower ratings of perception of support. Conclusions:The majority of respondents perceived their institutions and departments as unsupportive of educational effort. Direct compensation to physicians for teaching efforts may improve faculty retention in academia and reduce physician burnout.

SUBMITTER: Sun HH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6250485 | biostudies-other | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do Academic Health Care Systems Really Value Education? A Survey of Academic Plastic Surgeons.

Sun Helen H HH Pourtaheri Navid N Janis Jeffrey E JE Becker Devra B DB

Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open 20181016 10

<h4>Background</h4>Although education is critical to the mission of academic medical centers in the United States, it is often not quantified and monetized as are their research and clinical missions. We undertook this survey to assess the perceived valuation of educational endeavors of plastic surgeon faculty at the U.S. academic medical centers.<h4>Methods</h4>A survey using Qualtrics software (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) was distributed to faculty members of the American Council of Academic Plastic ...[more]

PMID: 30534496

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Despite limited oncologic benefit, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rates have increased in the United States over the past 15 years. CPM is often accompanied by breast reconstruction, thereby requiring an interdisciplinary approach between breast and plastic surgeons. Despite this, little is known about plastic surgeons' (PS) perspectives of CPM. The purpose of this study was to assess PS practice patterns, knowledge of CPM oncologic benefits, and perceptions of the CPM decision-making process. Methods: An electronic survey was sent to 2,642 members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS). Questions assessed demographics, practice patterns, knowledge of CPM oncologic benefits, and perceptions of the CPM decision-making process. Results: ASPS response rate was 12.5% (n = 329). Most responders worked in private practice (69%), were male (81%) and had been in practice for ≥15 years (60%). The median number of CPM reconstructions performed per month was 2-4. Fifty-five percent of PS reported routine attendance at a breast multidisciplinary conference. Responders reported CPM discussion was most likely to be initiated by the patient (51%) followed by the breast surgeon (38%), and plastic surgeon (7.3%). According to PS, the most common reason patients choose CPM is a perceived increased contralateral cancer risk (86%). Most plastic surgeons (63%) assessed the benefits of CPM as worth the risk of additional surgery and the majority (53%) estimated the complication rate at 2X the risk of unilateral surgery. The majority (61%) of PS estimated risk of contralateral cancer in an average risk patient between <2 and 5% over 10 years, which is consistent with data reported from the current literature. Most plastic surgeons (87%) reported that there was no evidence or limited evidence for breast cancer specific survival benefit with CPM. A minority of PS (18.5%) reported discomfort with a patient's choice for CPM. Of those surgeons reporting discomfort, the most common reasons for their reservations were a concern with the risk/benefit ratio of CPM and with lack of patient understanding of expected outcomes. Common reasons for PS comfort with CPM were a respect for autonomy and non-oncologic benefits of CPM. Discussion: To our knowledge, this is the first survey reporting PS perspectives on CPM. According to PS, CPM dialogue appears to be patient driven and dominated by a perceived increased risk of contralateral cancer. Few PS reported discomfort with CPM. While many PS acknowledge both the limited oncologic benefit of CPM and the increased risk of complications, the majority have the opinion that the benefits of CPM are worth the additional risk. This apparent contradiction may be due to an appreciation of the non-oncologic benefits CPM and a desire to respect patients' choices for treatment.

Project description:ImportanceLow-value health care remains prevalent in the US despite decades of work to measure and reduce such care. Efforts have been only modestly effective in part because the measurement of low-value care has largely been restricted to the national or regional level, limiting actionability.ObjectivesTo measure and report low-value care use across and within individual health systems and identify system characteristics associated with higher use using Medicare administrative data.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study of health system-attributed Medicare beneficiaries was conducted among 556 health systems in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Compendium of US Health Systems and included system-attributed beneficiaries who were older than 65 years, continuously enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B for at least 12 months in 2016 or 2017, and eligible for specific low-value services. Statistical analysis was conducted from January 26 to July 15, 2021.Main outcomes and measuresUse of 41 individual low-value services and a composite measure of the 28 most common services among system-attributed beneficiaries, standardized to distance from the mean value. Measures were based on the Milliman MedInsight Health Waste Calculator and published claims-based definitions.ResultsAcross 556 health systems serving a total of 11 637 763 beneficiaries, the mean (SD) use of each of the 41 low-value services ranged from 0% (0.01%) to 28% (4%) of eligible beneficiaries. The most common low-value services were preoperative laboratory testing (mean [SD] rate, 28% [4%] of eligible beneficiaries), prostate-specific antigen testing in men older than 70 years (mean [SD] rate, 27% [8%]), and use of antipsychotic medications in patients with dementia (mean [SD] rate, 24% [8%]). In multivariable analysis, the health system characteristics associated with higher use of low-value care were smaller proportion of primary care physicians (adjusted composite score, 0.15 [95% CI, 0.04-0.26] for systems with less than the median percentage of primary care physicians vs -0.16 [95% CI, -0.27 to -0.05] for those with more than the median percentage of primary care physicians; P < .001), no major teaching hospital (adjusted composite, 0.10 [95% CI, -0.01 to 0.20] without a teaching hospital vs -0.18 [95% CI, -0.34 to -0.02] with a teaching hospital; P = .01), larger proportion of non-White patients (adjusted composite, 0.15 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.32] for systems with >20% of non-White beneficiaries vs -0.06 [95% CI, -0.16 to 0.03] for systems with ≤20% of non-White beneficiaries; P = .04), headquartered in the South or West (adjusted composite, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.14-0.43] for the South and 0.22 [95% CI, 0.02-0.42] for the West compared with -0.09 [95% CI, -0.26 to 0.08] for the Northeast and -0.44 [95% CI, -0.60 to -0.28] for the Midwest; P < .001), and serving areas with more health care spending (adjusted composite, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.11-0.35] for areas above the median level of spending vs -0.24 [95% CI, -0.36 to -0.12] for areas below the median level of spending; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this large cohort study suggest that system-level measurement and reporting of specific low-value services is feasible, enables cross-system comparisons, and reveals a broad range of low-value care use.

Dataset Information

Do Academic Health Care Systems Really Value Education? A Survey of Academic Plastic Surgeons.

Publications

Do Academic Health Care Systems Really Value Education? A Survey of Academic Plastic Surgeons.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets