What would Osler do?

The catch-22 of promotion: Is becoming department chair of surgery a threat to the triple threat?

BACKGROUND

Despite the "fourth threat" of administrative demands, department chairs of surgery are expected to continue being a "triple threat": productive in research, outstanding in teaching, and exemplary in practice. Increased demands despite limited time are the catch-22 of promotion. This study investigated the influence of becoming department chair on scholarly vigor.

METHODS

The surgeons listed in the Society of Surgical Chairs Membership Directory website (n = 118) were included in this study. Three measures were compared during the pre- and post-promotion phases: (1) research productivity (annual publications); (2) authorship position in publications (first-authorship, co-authorship, and senior-authorship); and (3) scholarly impact (m-index and National Institute of Health funding).

RESULTS

The median [interquartile range] number of publications per year increased post-promotion versus pre-promotion (7.64 [3.81-14.15] vs 4.12 [2.08-7.03], P < .0005). The median [interquartile range] number of first-authorship publications per year decreased (0.50 [0.00-1.00] vs 0.64 [0.32-1.22], P < .05), whereas the median [interquartile range] number of co-authorship (4.23 [1.98-9.70] vs 2.02 [1.02-3.95], P < .0005) and senior-authorship (1.87 [0.99-4.03] vs 1.00 [0.36-2.24], P < .0005) publications per year increased post-promotion. The mean ± standard deviation m-index increased post-promotion (1.67 ± 1.19 vs 1.23 ± 0.83, P < .01). The mean ± standard deviation annual National Institute of Health grant funding amount of 48% (n = 57) of the department chairs increased post-promotion ($365,000 ± $899,000 vs $98,000 ± $143,000 pre-promotion, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The fourth threat of administrative demands is not a threat to the triple threat. This study showed the department chairs' continued scholarly vigor after promotion, providing insight into their tenacity, resilience, and dedication.

Using the H-index as a factor in the promotion of surgical faculty

Introduction

Academic productivity is an important determinant for promotion. However, the measurement of academic productivity is ill-defined. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the academic productivity at the time of promotions at our institution.

Methods

We reviewed the data of 33 faculty from Department of Surgery at our institution who were promoted from 2006 to 2021. Gender, academic productivity at hiring, and each promotion were obtained. Academic productivity was assessed by bibliometric indices including total number of publications and citations, and H-index, which were obtained from Web of Science. T-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher’s exact test and linear regression analysis were used to assess the association of H-index with length of promotion and gender. P < 0.050 were considered statistically significant.

Results

The medians (interquartile ranges) of indexes at hiring, at promotions from assistant professors to associate professors, and from associate professors to full professors were 6.0 (1.5–9.5), 11.0 (9.0–18.0) and 17.0 (9.0–23.0) respectively. A simple linear regression showed significant correlation between the length of promotion to associate professors and their H-indexes at hiring. (F (1, 27) = 10.55, p = 0.003, R² of 0.281.) There was no statistical significance in the difference of H-indexes at promotions between male and female faculty.

Conclusion

At our institution, the median H-indexes at the time of promotions from assistant professor to associate professor and from associate professor to full professor are 11.0 and 17.0. Using the H-index as an objective measure can be a useful tool to junior surgical faculty as reference for applying promotion.

Barriers to participation in global surgery academic collaborations, and possible solutions: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

There is a global lack of access to surgical care, and this issue disproportionately affects those in low- and middle-income countries. Global surgery academic collaborations (GSACs) between surgeons in high-income countries and those in low- and middle-income countries are one possible sustainable way to address the global surgical need. The objective of this study was to examine the barriers to participation in GSACs and to suggest ways to increase involvement.

METHODS

A convenience sample of 86 surgeons, anesthesiologists, other physicians, residents, fellows, and nurses from the US, Canada, and Norway was used. Participants were all health care providers from multiple specialties and multiple academic centers with varied involvement in GSACs. More than half of the participants were neurosurgeons. Participants were interviewed in person or over Skype in Toronto over the course of 2 months by using a predetermined set of open-ended questions. Thematic content analysis was used to evaluate the participants' responses.

RESULTS

Based on the data, 3 main themes arose that pointed to individual, community, and system barriers for involvement in GSACs. Individual barriers included loss of income, family commitments, young career, responsibility to local patients, skepticism of global surgery efforts, ethical concerns, and safety concerns. Community barriers included insufficient mentorship and lack of support from colleagues. System barriers included lack of time, minimal academic recognition, insufficient awareness, insufficient administrative support and organization, and low political and funding support.

CONCLUSIONS

Steps can be taken to address some of these barriers and to increase the involvement of surgeons from high-income countries in GSACs. This could lead to a necessary scale-up of global surgery efforts that may help increase worldwide access to surgical care.

Psychologists in Academic Health Centers and Medical Centers: Being Visible, Relevant and Integral

Psychologists play key roles in academic health centers. This article is an outgrowth of a presentation at the 2015 Conference of the Association of Psychologists in Academic Health Centers addressing various strategies by which psychologists can effectively adapt to and develop successful careers in medical schools, academic health centers, and teaching hospitals. The authors encourage early career and mid-career psychologists in academic health centers to be active, engaged members of their institutions and to participate in multiple aspects of the research, educational, and clinical missions.

Educating the surgeon-scientist: A qualitative study evaluating challenges and barriers toward becoming an academically successful surgeon

BACKGROUND

The advancement of surgical science relies on educating new generations of surgeon-scientists. Career development awards (K Awards) from the National Institutes of Health, often considered a marker of early academic success, are one way physician-scientists may foster skills through a mentored research experience. This study aimed to develop a conceptual framework to understand institutional support and other factors leading to a K Award.

METHODS

A national, qualitative study was conducted with academic surgeons. Participants included 15 K Awardees and 12 surgery department Chairs. Purposive sampling ensured a diverse range of experiences. Semistructured, in-depth telephone interviews were conducted. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, and 2 reviewers analyzed the transcripts using Grounded Theory methodology.

RESULTS

Participants described individual and institutional factors contributing to success. K Awardees cited personal factors such as perseverance and team leadership skills. Chairs described the K Awardee as an institutional "investment" requiring protected time for research, financial support, and mentorship. Both K Awardees and Chairs identified a number of challenges unique to the surgeon-scientist, including financial strains and competing clinical demands.

CONCLUSION

Institutional support for surgeons pursuing K Awards is a complex investment with significant initial costs to the department. Chairs act as stewards of institutional resources and support those surgeon-scientists most likely to be successful. Although the K Award pathway is one way to develop surgeon-scientists, financial burdens and challenges may limit its usefulness. These findings, however, may better prepare young surgeons to develop career plans and identify new mechanisms for academic productivity.

Addressing the "Global Health Tax" and "Wild Cards": Practical Challenges to Building Academic Careers in Global Health

Among many possible benefits, global health efforts can expand the skills and experience of U.S. clinicians, improve health for communities in need, and generate innovations in care delivery with relevance everywhere. Yet, despite high rates of interest among students and medical trainees to include global health opportunities in their training, there is still no clear understanding of how this interest will translate into viable and sustained global health careers after graduation. Building on a growing conversation about how to support careers in academic global health, this Perspective describes the practical challenges faced by physicians pursuing these careers after they complete training. Writing from their perspective as junior faculty at one U.S. academic health center with a dedicated focus on global health training, the authors describe a number of practical issues they have found to be critical both for their own career development and for the advice they provide their mentees. With a particular emphasis on the financial, personal, professional, and logistical challenges that young "expat" global health physicians in academic institutions face, they underscore the importance of finding ways to support these career paths, and propose possible solutions. Such investments would not only respond to the rational and moral imperatives of global health work and advance the mission of improving human health but also help to fully leverage the potential of what is already an unprecedented movement within academic medicine.

Scholarship in academic surgery: history, challenges, and ideas for the future

The role of academic surgery is changing. Traditional roles of the triple threat researcher, clinician and teacher, were formulated by Osler and improved upon by Boyle in the 1990s. These include application and integration of research to clinical problems. However, new pressures exist on the academic surgeon. Financial pressures rising costs of health care and decreased research funding all need to be addressed. In addition, retention and advancement of faculty is more difficult with increased emphasis of clinical practice in academic medicine. The future of academic medicine will require personal optimization as a multifaceted academician, businessman, and administrator, as well as rethinking how academic medicine may function in the future.