Search

The AAMC's Increasing Women's Leadership Project Implementation Committee examined four years of data on the advancement of women in academic medicine. With women comprising only 14% of tenured faculty and 12% of full professors, the committee concludes that the progress achieved is inadequate. Because academic medicine needs all the leaders it can develop to address accelerating institutional and societal needs, the waste of most women's potential is of growing importance. Only institutions able to recruit and retain women will be likely to maintain the best housestaff and faculty. The long-term success of academic health centers is thus inextricably linked to the development of women leaders. The committee therefore recommends that medical schools, teaching hospitals, and academic societies (1) emphasize faculty diversity in departmental reviews, evaluating department chairs on their development of women faculty; (2) target women's professional development needs within the context of helping all faculty maximize their faculty appointments, including helping men become more effective mentors of women; (3) assess which institutional practices tend to favor men's over women's professional development, such as defining "academic success" as largely an independent act and rewarding unrestricted availability to work (i.e., neglect of personal life); (4) enhance the effectiveness of search committees to attract women candidates, including assessment of group process and of how candidates' qualifications are defined and evaluated; and (5) financially support institutional Women in Medicine programs and the AAMC Women Liaison Officer and regularly monitor the representation of women at senior ranks.

This is the final report of a panel convened as part of the Association of American Medical College's (AAMC's) Mission-based Management Program to examine the use of metrics (i.e., measures) in assessing faculty and departmental contributions to the clinical mission. The authors begin by focusing on methods employed to estimate clinical effort and calculate a "clinical full-time equivalent," a prerequisite to comparing productivity among faculty members and departments. They then identify commonly used metrics, including relative-value units, total patient-care gross charges, total net patient fee-for-service revenue, total volume per CPT (current procedural terminologies) code by service category and number of patients per physician, discussing their advantages and disadvantages. These measures reflect the "twin pillars" of measurement criteria, those based on financial or revenue information, and those based on measured activity. In addition, the authors urge that the assessment of quality of care become more highly developed and integrated into an institution's measurement criteria. The authors acknowledge the various ways users of clinical metrics can develop standards against which to benchmark performance. They identify organizations that are sources of information about external national standards, acknowledge various factors that confound the interpretation of productivity data, and urge schools to identify and measure secondary service indicators to assist with interpretation and provide a fuller picture of performance. Finally, they discuss other, non-patient-care, activities that contribute to the clinical mission, information about which should be incorporated into the overall assessment. In summary, the authors encourage the use of clinical productivity metrics as an integral part of a comprehensive evaluation process based upon clearly articulated and agreed-upon goals and objectives. When carefully designed, these measurement systems can provide critical information that will enable institutional leaders to recognize and reward faculty and departmental performance in fulfillment of the clinical mission.

This article describes how the surgery clerkship at MCP Hahnemann School of Medicine was redesigned to provide all students a well-rounded general professional education and to address the specific educational needs of generalists. During the 12-week clerkship, students spend eight weeks on two different general surgery rotations, which include significant experiences in outpatient settings. The evaluation and management of common general surgical problems, as well as the holistic approach to patient care, are emphasized. A nurse educator, recruited through funding obtained from The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Generalist Physician Initiative, provides formal instruction in holistic care and teaches bedside procedures. Two weeks are devoted to focused surgical subspecialty experiences addressing common conditions and are conducted primarily in outpatient settings. The remaining two weeks include an integrated musculoskeletal disease rotation, including orthopaedic surgery, rheumatology, physiatry, and radiology. Didactic teaching includes criteria for referral of patients from generalists to specialists. The new clerkship model has been well received by the students. Review of student logs for the first six months indicates the breadth of surgical experience has been maintained and appropriate balance achieved between simple and complex surgical cases. Further evaluation of the model will continue through longitudinal follow-up.