Search

Background and Objectives: The use of incentive compensation in academic family medicine has been a topic of interest for many years, yet little is known about the impact of these systems on individual faculty members. Better understanding is needed about the relationship of incentive compensation systems (ICSs) to ICS satisfaction, motivation, and retention among academic family medicine faculty.Methods: The Council of Academic Family Medicine (CAFM) Educational Research Alliance (CERA) conducted a nationwide survey of its members in 2013. This study reports the results of the incentive compensation question subset of the larger omnibus survey.Results: The overall response rate was 53%. The majority (70% [360/511]) of academic faculty reported that they are eligible for some type of incentive compensation. The faculty reported moderate satisfaction, with only 38% being satisfied or highly satisfied with their ICS. Overall mean motivation and intent to remain in their current position were similar. The percentage of total income available as an incentive explained less than 10% of the variance of those outcomes. Faculty perceptions of appropriateness of the measures, understanding of the measurement and reward systems, and perception of due process are all related to satisfaction with the ICS, motivation, and retention.Conclusions: ICSs are common in academic family medicine, yet most faculty do not find them to motivate their choice of activities or promote staying in their current position. Design and implementation are both important in promoting faculty satisfaction with the ICS, motivation, and retention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI) has been promoted as a key component of competency-based training in medical student education, but little is known about its implementation. Methods: This project is part of a larger CERA omnibus survey of family medicine medical student clerkship directors carried out from July to September 2012. Analyses were conducted to as-sess clerkship infrastructure, learner assessment and feedback, and clerkship director perceptions of PBLI curricula. RESULTS: The majority (69.0%, 58/82) of family medicine clerk-ship directors reported that PBLI is not included in their clerkship. Significant predictors of PBLI in the curriculum include: regularly scheduled centralized teaching (weekly or more versus less than weekly, OR=1.14, 95% Cl=1.01-1.29) and clerkship director belief that students should achieve PBLI competency (agree in compe-tency versus disagree in competency, 0R=1.19, 95% Cl=1.08-1.30). Few (20.5%, 16/78) family medicine clerkship directors reported that the amount of PBLI in their curriculum is likely to increase in the next 12 months. The duration of the clerkship was a significant predictor of reported likelihood of increasing PBLI over the next 12 months (3 weeks versus 8 weeks, OR=1.23, 95% CI-1.00-1.51). CONCLUSIONS: Despite increased emphasis on quality improve-ment activities in practice, most family medicine clerkships do not currently offer PBLI curricula. Additionally, less than one in four family medicine clerkships plan on increasing the amount of PBLI curricula in the next 12 months. Continued research in this area is needed to identify successful models for PBLI curricular offerings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: An economically mature health care market has led to increased cost competition. Subsequently, a perceived need for productivity-based physician compensation has developed. While some institutions have rewarded individual productivity based on specific facets of academic responsibility, such as teaching, research, and patient care, we chose to develop an incentive compensation system that rewards both individual and group productivity., Program Development: We developed a physician incentive compensation system that rewards individual and group productivity by capturing multiple aspects of work activity. Faculty members are given compensation value points for clinical productivity, scholarship activities, teaching activities, service activities, and achievement of the department's goals. The system was implemented in a graduated fashion in the Department of Family Medicine at Indiana University beginning July 1, 2000., Program Evaluation: In April 2003, all faculty physicians (n=18) participated in a survey about the compensation system. The majority of faculty view the system as a necessity for the department (72.2%); 35.2% were satisfied with the system overall; 35.3% were neutral; and 27.4% were dissatisfied or not sure of their overall satisfaction., Conclusions: A comprehensive physician incentive compensation system incorporating department goals can be designed and implemented in an academic setting.