Faculty Preferences in Clinical Education Recognition: A Survey of Faculty at 3 Institutions

Abstract

Purpose:

Innovative studies have created proposals for measuring productivity using Relative Value Unit (RVU) or Educational Value Unit (EVU) systems, but little attention has been given to faculty preferences for rewarding educational activity. This study assesses perceptions of educational value and reward preferences for educational involvement of faculty at 3 different hospital systems affiliated with 1 medical school.

Method:

A 25-question electronic survey was sent to clinical faculty across 3 distinct hospital systems affiliated with a Midwestern medical school in spring 2015. Results were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and free text comments were reviewed for common themes.

Results:

A total of 4325 surveys were distributed and 361/467 (77%) of the surveys opened were completed for an overall response rate of 8%. Of the respondents 55% were employed by the primary affiliate hospital. Most respondents believed some method of recognition for educational activities should be in place at their institution. Overall, clinical faculty believed their own hospital systems valued education less than the school of medicine and their departments did. Most faculty gave highest preference for academic recognition, reduction in RVU requirements, or an adoption of an EVU system.

Conclusion:

Most faculty preferred reduced RVU requirements, adoption of an EVU system, or some method of academic recognition to reward educational activity. Differences in results between hospital systems suggest institutional climate may influence faculty preferences.

Keywords

Medical education RVU preference EVU survey educational value unit

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Wartman

Zhou

Knettel

AJ.

Health reform and academic health centers. Acad Med. 2015;90(12):1587-1590.

Barzansky

Kenagy

The full-time clinical faculty: what goes around, comes around. Acad Med. 2010;85(2):260-265.

Schindler

Corcoran

Miller

, et al. Implementing an excellence in teaching recognition system: needs analysis and recommendations. J Surg Educ. 2013;70(6):731-738.

Nutter

Bond

Coller

, et al. Measuring faculty effort and contributions in medical education. Acad Med. 2000;75(2):199-207.

Stites

Vansaghi

Pingleton

Cox

Paolo

Aligning compensation with education: design and implementation of the educational value unit (EVU) system in an academic internal medicine department. Acad Med. 2005;80(12):1100-1106.

Hsiao

Braun

Dunn

Becker

ER.

Resource-based relative values. An overview. JAMA. 1988;260(16):2347-2353. doi:10.1001/jama.1988.03410160021004.

Bland

Seaquist

Pacala

Finstad

Center

One school’s strategy to assess and improve the vitality of its faculty. Acad Med. 2002;77(5):368-376.

Demmy

Kivlahan

Stone

Teague

Sapienza

Physicians’ perceptions of institutional and leadership factors influencing their job satisfaction at one academic medical center. Acad Med. 2002;77(12 Pt 1):1235-1240.

Mallon

Jones

RF.

How do medical schools use measurement systems to track faculty activity and productivity in teaching?

Acad Med. 2002;77(2):115-123.

10.

Clyburn

Wood

Moran

Feussner

JR.

Valuing the education mission: implementing an educational value units system. Am J Med. 2011;124(6):567-572.

11.

Bunton

Corrice

Mallon

. Clinical Faculty Satisfaction with the Academic Medicine Workplace. Washington, DC: AAMC; 2010:32.

12.

Bunton

Corrice

Pollart

, et al. Predictors of workplace satisfaction for U.S. medical school faculty in an era of change and challenge. Acad Med. 2012;87(5):574-581.

13.

Landon

Reschovsky

Pham

Blumenthal

Leaving medicine: the consequences of physician dissatisfaction. Med Care. 2006;44(3):234-242.

14.

Boehler

Rogers

Schwind

, et al. An investigation of medical student reactions to feedback: a randomised controlled trial. Med Educ. 2006;40(8):746-749.

15.

Sinclair

O’Toole

Malawaraarachchi

Leder

Comparison of response rates and cost-effectiveness for a community-based survey: postal, internet and telephone modes with generic or personalised recruitment approaches. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):132.

16.

Scott

Jeon

S-H

Joyce

, et al. A randomised trial and economic evaluation of the effect of response mode on response rate, response bias, and item non-response in a survey of doctors. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):126.

17.

Nolte

Shauver

Chung

KC.

Structure and establishing validity in survey research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(1):216e-222e.

18.

Halbesleben

JRB

Whitman

MV.

Evaluating survey quality in health services research: a decision framework for assessing nonresponse bias. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(3):913-930.

19.

Groves

RM.

Nonresponse rate and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opin Q. 2006;70(5):646-675.

20.

Phillips

Reddy

Durning

SJ.

Improving response rates and evaluating nonresponse bias in surveys: AMEE guide no. 102. Med Teach. 2016;38(3):217-228.