Measuring physicians' productivity: a three-year study to evaluate a new remuneration system

Educational Relative Value Units as a Measure of Academic Productivity: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Academic Health Centers (AHCs) have complex, often competing missions. Many have developed mission-based management (MBM) systems to support their clinical and non-clinical missions. There are limited data on MBM use for their educational missions. Our scoping review explored how AHCs employed such systems.  Materials and methods: Arksey and O'Malley's six-stage framework guided our review. Based on pre-defined criteria, English language articles from PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and the Healthcare Administration Database published between 2010 and 2020 were loaded into a reference manager. The search included all health professions education schools. Articles were excluded if they were review articles, commentaries, or clearly did not involve funding for education. From the final list of selected articles, data were extracted using a data extraction sheet we developed. Two researchers reviewed each article again to ensure extracted data were reported consistently and with sufficient detail.  Results: Of the 1729 manuscripts identified, 35 met inclusion criteria. Sixteen (46%) contained data in some form but did not have a formal methods section describing the specific approach to data collection and analysis. Moreover, there was marked variability in how educational effort was quantified, what counted as educational effort (educational scholarship versus teaching) and the impacts of such quantification (departmental funding versus individual faculty incentives). None of the studies reported on the impact on faculty promotion. Faculty satisfaction with the system was reported in seven studies (20%) and was generally positive.

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic description of how systems were developed to support the educational mission was lacking. Clear goals, methods of development, uniform data on educational productivity and quality, and program evaluation were not defined by most articles. This lack of process clarity presents a challenge, but more importantly an opportunity for academic health centers to unify efforts and continue to further their educational mission.

Evaluating Nonclinical Performance of the Academic Pathologist: A Comprehensive, Scalable, and Flexible System for Leadership Use

Academic pathologists perform clinical duties, as well as valuable nonclinical activities. Nonclinical activities may consist of research, teaching, and administrative management among many other important tasks. While clinical duties have many clear metrics to measure productivity, like the relative value units of Medicare reimbursement, nonclinical performance is often difficult to measure. Despite the difficulty of evaluating nonclinical activities, nonclinical productivity is used to determine promotion, funding, and inform professional evaluations of performance. In order to better evaluate the important nonclinical performance of academic pathologists, we present an evaluation system for leadership use. This system uses a Microsoft Excel workbook to provide academic pathologist respondents and reviewing leadership a transparent, easy-to-complete system that is both flexible and scalable. This system provides real-time feedback to academic pathologist respondents and a clear executive summary that allows for focused guidance of the respondent. This system may be adapted to fit practices of varying size, measure performance differently based on years of experience, and can work with many different institutional values.

Results, Knowledge, and Attitudes Regarding an Incentive Compensation Plan in a Hospital-Based, Academic, Employed Physician Multispecialty Group

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Hospitals and healthcare systems are introducing incentive metrics into compensation plans that align with value-based payment methodologies. These incentive measures should be considered a practical application of the transition from volume to value and will likely replace traditional productivity-based compensation in the future. During the transition, there will be provider resistance and implementation challenges. This article examines a large multispecialty group's experience with a newly implemented incentive compensation plan including the structure of the plan, formulas for calculation of the payments, the mix of quality and productivity metrics, and metric threshold achievement. Three rounds of surveys with comments were collected to measure knowledge and attitudes regarding the plan. Lessons learned and specific recommendations for success are described. The participant's knowledge and attitudes regarding the plan are important considerations and affect morale and engagement. Significant provider dissatisfaction with the plan was found. Careful metric selection, design, and management are critical activities that will facilitate provider acceptance and support. Improvements in data collection and reporting will be needed to produce reliable metrics that can supplant traditional volume-based productivity measures.

Effectiveness of iterative interventions to increase research productivity in one residency program

BACKGROUND

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires residency programs to expose residents to research opportunities.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of a series of iterative interventions to increase scholarly activity in one internal medicine residency.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of the effectiveness of a series of interventions to increase resident and faculty scholarly productivity over a 14-year period was performed using quality improvement methodology. Outcomes measured were accepted regional and national abstracts and PubMed indexed manuscripts of residents and faculty.

RESULTS

Initially, regional meeting abstracts increased and then were supplanted by national meeting abstracts. Sustained gains in manuscript productivity occurred in the eighth year of interventions, increasing from a baseline of 0.01 publications/FTE/year to 1.57 publications/FTE/year in the final year measured. Run chart analysis indicated special cause variation associated with the interventions performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Programs attempting to stimulate research production among faculty and residents can choose among many interventions cited in the literature. Since success of any group of interventions is likely additive and may take years to show benefit, measuring outcomes using quality improvement methodology may be an effective way to determine success.

Assessment of faculty productivity in academic departments of medicine in the United States: a national survey

BACKGROUND

Faculty productivity is essential for academic medical centers striving to achieve excellence and national recognition. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether and how academic Departments of Medicine in the United States measure faculty productivity for the purpose of salary compensation.

METHODS

We surveyed the Chairs of academic Departments of Medicine in the United States in 2012. We sent a paper-based questionnaire along with a personalized invitation letter by postal mail. For non-responders, we sent reminder letters, then called them and faxed them the questionnaire. The questionnaire included 8 questions with 23 tabulated close-ended items about the types of productivity measured (clinical, research, teaching, administrative) and the measurement strategies used. We conducted descriptive analyses.

RESULTS

Chairs of 78 of 152 eligible departments responded to the survey (51% response rate). Overall, 82% of respondents reported measuring at least one type of faculty productivity for the purpose of salary compensation. Amongst those measuring faculty productivity, types measured were: clinical (98%), research (61%), teaching (62%), and administrative (64%). Percentages of respondents who reported the use of standardized measurements units (e.g., Relative Value Units (RVUs)) varied from 17% for administrative productivity to 95% for research productivity. Departments reported a wide variation of what exact activities are measured and how they are monetarily compensated. Most compensation plans take into account academic rank (77%). The majority of compensation plans are in the form of a bonus on top of a fixed salary (66%) and/or an adjustment of salary based on previous period productivity (55%).

CONCLUSION

Our survey suggests that most academic Departments of Medicine in the United States measure faculty productivity and convert it into standardized units for the purpose of salary compensation. The exact activities that are measured and how they are monetarily compensated varied substantially across departments.