American journal of surgery · 2009
Incentives for scholarly activity at university and independent general surgery residencies: current practices.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Helling Thomas S, Dumire Russell D, Augustosky Kim
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Teaching physicians and academic medical centers may find it more difficult to meet clinical productivity expectations and still contribute to scholarly activity in the present economic climate of health care.
METHODS: A multiquestion survey was developed and distributed via the Association of Program Directors in Surgery list-serve.
RESULTS: There were 80 respondents (31% response rate), 29 university program (UP), 43 independent program (IP), and 8 "other." Although most programs had designated teaching faculty (72% UP, 93% IP), the trend was not to compensate for scholarly activity whether voluntary (100% UP, 91% IP), employed (82% UP, 74% IP), or contracted (57% UP, 85% IP; P = not specified). Most (69% UP, 75% IP) programs had no incentives for scholarly activities, despite dissatisfaction with involvement of volunteer faculty (19% UP, 55% IP; P = .04). Most compensation plans (79% UP, 66% IP) were discretionary or atypical.
CONCLUSIONS: Most programs, UP and IP, did not compensate for scholarly activity for teaching faculty. There was a significant proportion that believed compensation would improve teaching efforts.
METHODS: A multiquestion survey was developed and distributed via the Association of Program Directors in Surgery list-serve.
RESULTS: There were 80 respondents (31% response rate), 29 university program (UP), 43 independent program (IP), and 8 "other." Although most programs had designated teaching faculty (72% UP, 93% IP), the trend was not to compensate for scholarly activity whether voluntary (100% UP, 91% IP), employed (82% UP, 74% IP), or contracted (57% UP, 85% IP; P = not specified). Most (69% UP, 75% IP) programs had no incentives for scholarly activities, despite dissatisfaction with involvement of volunteer faculty (19% UP, 55% IP; P = .04). Most compensation plans (79% UP, 66% IP) were discretionary or atypical.
CONCLUSIONS: Most programs, UP and IP, did not compensate for scholarly activity for teaching faculty. There was a significant proportion that believed compensation would improve teaching efforts.