Tried and true: a survey of successfully promoted academic hospitalists

Comparing Japanese University Hospitals' and Community Healthcare Facilities' Research Contributions on PubMed

Purpose

Although research in general medicine is important, the contributions and characteristics of general medicine physicians (GMPs) in university hospitals (UH) and community healthcare facilities (CHF) remains unclear. Therefore, this study examines the popularity of research by affiliation, characteristics of journal publication, annual trends, and differences in impact factors (IFs) of journal publications.

Methods

This study is a secondary bibliometric analysis of articles in international journals published in PubMed over the past six years (2015-2020). The analysis compared English articles published by either UH- or CHF-affiliated GMPs in Japan in terms of, among other things, article type, research field, and IF.

Results

Of the 2372 articles analyzed, 1688 (71.2%) were published by physicians affiliated with UHs, 62.6% of which were original. Basic research, international collaboration, and ratio of IFs were significantly higher for such papers. In contrast, the number of CHF articles were significantly higher in the areas of clinical research and practice, with a greater proportion of case reports. There was no significant difference in IF between the disciplines within each affiliation, but the IF was the highest in experimental basic research and the lowest in medical and clinical education. In the six-year time series, the number of original papers by UHs and CHFs increased roughly twofold between 2015 and 2020, but the number of articles in the areas of medical education and healthcare quality and safety remained mostly unchanged.

Conclusion

The number of international papers published by Japanese GMPs has increased since 2015, particularly in terms of original papers and clinical research from UHs. However, there was no significant difference in the IF between UH and CHF publications. Our findings can guide the development of indicators, research, and education strategies regarding Japanese GMPs' research performance.

Research Trends and Impact Factor on PubMed Among General Medicine Physicians in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Bibliometric Analysis

Background

Japan created a specialty system for general medicine in 2018. However, Japanese academic generalists’ contribution to research remains unclear. This study examines the popularity of Japanese general medicine research, the characteristics of journal publications, annual trends, and the characteristics/differences among publications in journals with an impact factor (IF).

Methods

This bibliometric analysis extracted international, English-language, journal articles published on PubMed between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020. Analysis included articles with either the first, second, or last author in general medicine. We classified articles according to publication or article type and field of research. We obtained standard descriptive statistics for each publication type. Chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test was used to compare nominal variables. For continuous variables, t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used, as appropriate.

Results

Of the 2372 articles analyzed, original articles were most common (56.3%), followed by case reports (30.1%), reviews (7.63%), and letters/others (5.9%). Publication volume increased 2.64-fold annually over 5 years. Clinical research (60.5%) was most common among original articles, followed by basic experimental research (17.5%) and public health/epidemiology (12.7%). Medical quality and safety (4.1%), medical and clinical education (3.1%), and health services (1.42%) received comparatively little attention. Eighty percent of articles were published in journals with IF; however, these journals rarely published case reports. Among original articles, the likelihood of publishing in journals with IF was high for basic laboratory medicine articles with higher IF (median IF 3.83, OR 1.71, 95% CI 2.20–5.95, p=0.044) and lower for clinical education research with the lowest IF (median IF 1.83, OR 0.56, 95% CI 01.8–0.75, p<0.001).

Discussion

General medicine physicians’ international research output is increasing in Japan; however, research achievements have not been generalized, but rather much influenced by clinical subspecialty backgrounds. This will likely continue unless an academic generalist discipline is established.

Evaluating educational performance and achievements of faculty in general medicine departments of Japanese universities

A cross‐sectional questionnaire‐based study was conducted to examine whether the educational performance and achievements are appropriately recognized and contribute to their promotion in university hospitals. We found that the chairpersons of those general medicine departments believed that educational performance had not been appropriately evaluated; educational achievements did not receive sufficient consideration for promotion compared with the performance and achievements related to clinical and research activities.

Utilization of a National Writing Challenge to Promote Scholarly Work: A Pilot Study

Background

Hospitalists value mentorship and scholarly work, yet often struggle to find time and mentors amid busy clinical workloads.

Objective

To help catalyze writing for hospitalists nationally, we created a Writing Challenge, where we asked hospitalists to commit to the goal of writing 400 words a day, four days a week, for four weeks.

Methods

Prospective, programmatic evaluation with daily logs followed by a survey at the completion of the project. The four-week Writing Challenge occurred between June 7 and July 5, 2021. Email invitations to participate in the challenge were disseminated to peer networks, and the challenge was promoted using social media. Participants agreed to attempt to write 400 words per day, four days per week, for four weeks.

Results

Seventy-four individuals from 28 institutions registered for the Writing Challenge, with 36 (49%) participating in the challenge by logging their writing. Participants wrote an average of 4,372 +/- 4,324 words during the challenge. Sixty-eight percent of the participants reported that their amount of writing increased during the challenge and 50% of the participants stated they planned to publish their work, though many participants (46%) reported struggling to write each day.

Conclusions

The Writing Challenge is one way to generate increased writing and may result in increased scholarly output for academic hospitalists.

Successful recruitment and retention of academic physicians: hiring for longevity, productivity, and leadership in hospital medicine

BACKGROUND

Considerable resources are expended by hospitals to recruit and retain physicians that will be successful. Healthcare managers lack data to guide these decisions. In that vacuum, suppositions regarding what attributes contribute to physician success predominate.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the relationship between candidate factors known at the time of hiring and subsequent longevity and success of physicians in an academic division of hospital internal medicine.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A retrospective review of all physicians hired in an academic hospital internal medicine division. Measures of longevity, research productivity, academic promotion and division leadership roles were compared to personal and professional characteristics at the time of hiring. Success was quantified in those four domains and associations explored for between success and hiring factors.

RESULTS

Female physicians had greater longevity at the institution. Physicians from the hospital region were no more likely to stay long-term as compared to those from other regions. United States medical graduates were more likely to attain leadership positions than international graduates. There was an inverse relationship between research productivity and administrative leadership.

CONCLUSIONS

Factors commonly sought by academic healthcare institutions were not associated with long term success in academic hospital medicine. Less research productivity was associated with greater divisional leadership involvement, suggesting that scholarship and administrative leadership may represent separate tracks for physicians at academic institutions.

Scholarly Productivity and Rank in Academic Hospital Medicine

Despite the rapid growth of academic hospital medicine, scholarly productivity remains poorly characterized. In this cross-sectional study, distribution of academic rank and scholarly output of academic hospital medicine faculty are described. We extracted data for 1,554 hospitalists on faculty at the top 25 internal medicine residency programs. Only 11.7% of faculty had reached associate (9.0%) or full professor (2.7%). The median number of publications was 0.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.0-4.0), with 51.4% without a single publication. Faculty 6 to 10 years post residency had a median of 1.0 (IQR, 0.0-4.0) publication, with 46.8% of these faculty without a publication. Among men, 54.3% had published at least one manuscript, compared to 42.7% of women (P < .0001). Predictors of promotion included H-index, number of years post residency graduation, completion of chief residency, and graduation from a top 25 medical school. Promotion remains uncommon in academic hospital medicine, which may be partially due to low rates of scholarly productivity.

Building a comprehensive mentoring academy for schools of health

Formal mentoring programs are increasingly recognized as critical for faculty career development. We describe a mentoring academy (MA) developed for faculty across tracks (i.e., researchers, clinicians, educators) within a “school of health” encompassing schools of medicine and nursing. The program is anchored dually in a clinical and translational science center and a school of health. The structure includes the involvement of departmental and center mentoring directors to achieve widespread uptake and oversight. A fundamental resource provided by the MA includes providing workshops to enhance mentoring skills. Initiatives for junior faculty emphasize establishing and maintaining strong mentoring relationships and implementing individual development plans (IDPs) for career planning. We present self-report data on competency improvement from mentor workshops and data on resources and barriers identified by junior faculty (n = 222) in their IDPs. Mentors reported statistically significantly improved mentoring competency after workshop participation. Junior faculty most frequently identified mentors (61%) and collaborators (23%) as resources for goal attainment. Top barriers included insufficient time and time-management issues (57%), funding limitations (18%), work–life balance issues (18%), including inadequate time for self-care and career development activities. Our MA can serve as a model and roadmap for providing resources to faculty across traditional tracks within medical schools.

Parenthood does not explain the gender difference in clinical position in academic medicine among Swedish, Dutch and Austrian physicians

Studies have continuously shown that fewer women than men achieve leadership positions in academic medicine. In the current study we explored gender differences in clinical position among academic physicians at three university hospitals, each in a different European country. These countries, Sweden, the Netherlands and Austria, differ in terms of gender equality. We analyzed whether the number of children, working hours or publications could explain gender differences in physicians' clinical position. In this cross-sectional questionnaire study 1333 (54% female) physicians participated. Physicians were asked about their gender, age, number of children, working hours and clinical position. We used structural equation models to explore the influence of gender on the physicians' clinical position in each of the three countries. We explored whether the association between gender and clinical position could be explained by number of children, working hours or publication activity. The analyses revealed that at all three university hospitals gender influenced clinical position. These gender differences in clinical position could be partly explained by gender differences in publication activity. Female physicians as compared to male physicians were likely to publish fewer articles, and in turn these lower publication numbers were associated with lower clinical positions. The number of children or working hours did not explain gender differences in publication activity or clinical position. Therefore, factors other than unequal allocation of household labor, such as the academic working environment, may still disproportionately disadvantage women's progress, even at universities in countries with high rates of gender equality such as Sweden.

Visiting professorship in hospital medicine: An innovative twist for a growing specialty

INTRODUCTION

As an emerging and rapidly growing specialty, academic hospitalists face unique challenges in career advancement. Key mentoring needs, especially developing reputation and relationships outside of their institution are often challenging.

METHODS

We describe the structure of a novel Visiting Professorship in Hospital Medicine Program. It utilizes reciprocal exchanges of hospitalist faculty at the rank of late assistant to early associate professor. The program is designed explicitly to facilitate spread of innovation between institutions through a presentation by the visiting professor and exposure to an innovation at the host hospital medicine group. It provides a platform to advance the career success of both early- and midcareer hospitalist faculty through 1-on-1 coaching sessions between the visiting professor and early-career faculty at the host institution and commitment by visiting professors to engage in mentoring after the visit.

RESULTS

Five academic hospitalist groups participated. Seven visiting professors met with 29 early-career faculty. Experience following faculty exchange visits demonstrates program effectiveness, as perceived by both early-career faculty and the visiting professors, in advancing the goals of mentorship and career advancement. One-year follow-up suggests that 62% of early-career faculty will engage in subsequent interactions with the visiting professor, and half report spread of innovation between academic hospital medicine groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The Visiting Professorship in Hospital Medicine offers a low-cost framework to promote collaboration between academic hospital medicine groups and facilitate interinstitutional hospitalist mentoring. It is reported to be effective for the goal of professional development for midcareer hospitalists. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:714-718. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.

Implementation and evaluation of a "works-in-progress" session to promote scholarship in an academic hospitalist group

BACKGROUND

Hospitalists frequently work on diverse projects, but often do not have the training and experience necessary to translate projects into peer-reviewed publications and grants.

OBJECTIVE

Describe implementation and effect of a works-in-progress (WIP) series on progress and training in scholarly work.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

Urban academic medical center.

INTERVENTION

A weekly WIP session, named Incubator, serving as a forum where researchers, clinicians, and educators meet to review and provide feedback on projects underway across the Division of Hospital Medicine.

MEASUREMENTS

We surveyed presenters at Incubator to evaluate the impact of Incubator on scholarly activities. Responses were based on Kirkpatrick's 4-level training hierarchy: (1) Reaction: participants' satisfaction; (2) Learning: knowledge acquisition; (3) Behavior: application of skills; and (4) Results of projects. We compared responses between researchers and nonresearchers using χ² tests.

RESULTS

Of 51 surveys completed (response rate 70%), 35 (69%) projects were nonresearcher led. Reaction, behavior change, and results were all positive, with >90% respondents reporting a positive outcome in each category, a high rate of publication/funding, and 35% reporting learning as a result of Incubator. Comparison of researchers and nonresearchers revealed no significant differences, except nonresearchers reported significantly more favorable results in behavior and mentoring (P < 0.05).

DISCUSSION

A regularly scheduled, researcher-led WIP session within a largely clinically oriented hospital medicine division can provide a venue for feedback that may promote progress and practical training in scholarly projects. In addition to robust career mentorship programs and protected time, a WIP can be an adjunct to improve scholarly output among academic hospitalists. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:719-723. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.

Hospitalist workload and resident evaluations

BACKGROUND

Most academic hospitalists fulfil the role of clinician educator and have many opportunities for the bedside clinical teaching of resident physicians; however, hospitalists are promoted at lower rates than traditional internal medicine faculty staff. The conflict between the demands of clinical productivity and time to teach may be central to understanding the lower rates of academic promotion seen in hospitalists. This investigation explores the relationship between clinical productivity and learner evaluations of hospitalist clinician educators.

METHODS

A retrospective review of clinical productivity and learner evaluations of hospitalists by residents was collected during the 2009-2012 academic years at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. Correlation analysis between annual work relative value units (wRVUs), patient encounters and duty days with resident evaluations of faculty staff in the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies was performed.

RESULTS

Forty-one annual data sets, representing 18 individual hospitalists, were analysed. No significant correlations between clinical productivity, in terms of annual work RVUs, patient encounters and duty days, and resident learner evaluation scores was found. This investigation explores the relationship between clinical productivity and learner evaluations of hospitalist clinician educators

DISCUSSION

This study found no significant influence of measures of annual clinical service workload on resident learner evaluations of hospitalist clinical educators. These results are consistent with data reported for emergency medicine doctors and anaesthesiologists. These results may have significant implications for the staffing requirements for academic hospitalists.

Research and publication trends in hospital medicine

BACKGROUND

Research by hospitalists may aid the evolution of hospital medicine into an academic specialty.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the factors associated with research and publication activities among hospitalists and describe trends in hospitalist-led publications.

METHODS

We surveyed members of the Society of Hospital Medicine in June 2012 and conducted univariate analyses on their responses to determine predictors of successful authorship and to describe factors associated with research engagement. We searched PubMed from the database inception to October 2013 for publications with "hospitalist" or "hospital medicine" affiliated authors. Original research articles were reviewed for methodology and funding sources.

RESULTS

Of the 645 respondents (5.8% response rate), 277 (43%) had authored peer-reviewed publications, 126 (19%) had access to mentorship, and 68 (11%) reported funding support. There were 213 (33%) who were engaged in research, with the majority conducting quality improvement (QI) research (n = 152, 24%). Completion of a fellowship, pediatrics training, the presence of a mentor, funding, and >25% protected time for research were each individually associated with an increased likelihood of authoring publications. Hospitalist-led publications in PubMed have been increasing from 36 in 2006 to 179 in the first 10 months of 2013. Of the original research publications (n = 317), the majority were clinical (n = 129, 41%), and 58 (18%) were QI. Thirty-nine (22%) authors reported funding support.

CONCLUSIONS

Peer-reviewed publications by hospitalists are increasing, suggesting the academic maturation of hospital medicine. Provision of mentorship for hospitalists specifically in QI and guidance toward funding resources may assist in supporting this trend.

Documenting quality improvement and patient safety efforts: the quality portfolio. A statement from the academic hospitalist taskforce

Physicians increasingly investigate, work, and teach to improve the quality of care and safety of care delivery. The Society of General Internal Medicine Academic Hospitalist Task Force sought to develop a practical tool, the quality portfolio, to systematically document quality and safety achievements. The quality portfolio was vetted with internal and external stakeholders including national leaders in academic medicine. The portfolio was refined for implementation to include an outlined framework, detailed instructions for use and an example to guide users. The portfolio has eight categories including: (1) a faculty narrative, (2) leadership and administrative activities, (3) project activities, (4) education and curricula, (5) research and scholarship, (6) honors, awards, and recognition, (7) training and certification, and (8) an appendix. The authors offer this comprehensive, yet practical tool as a method to document quality and safety activities. It is relevant for physicians across disciplines and institutions and may be useful as a standalone document or as an adjunct to traditional promotion documents. As the Next Accreditation System is implemented, academic medical centers will require faculty who can teach and implement the systems-based practice requirements. The quality portfolio is a method to document quality improvement and safety activities.