Facial Plastic Surgery Faculty Turnover: Survey of Academic Facial Plastic Surgeons and Department Chairs
| Autor: | David M. Kowalczyk, J. Randall Jordan |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
Reconstructive surgery lcsh:Medicine 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine plastic surgery medicine In patient 030223 otorhinolaryngology Original Research business.industry lcsh:R Resident education lcsh:Otorhinolaryngology lcsh:RF1-547 Plastic surgery Otorhinolaryngology Turnover 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis Family medicine Facial plastic surgery Respondent surveys and questionnaires otolaryngology business |
| Zdroj: | International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, Vol 23, Iss 02, Pp 209-217 (2019) International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology v.23 n.2 2019 Fundação Otorrinolaringologia (FORL) instacron:FORL International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, Volume: 23, Issue: 2, Pages: 209-217, Published: 18 JUL 2019 |
| ISSN: | 1809-4864 1809-9777 |
| DOI: | 10.1055/s-0038-1675188 |
| Popis: | Introduction The turnover and inability to consistently retain academic facial plastic surgeons is an issue that many academic departments of otolaryngology face. In addition to the financial costs of staff turnover and gaps in patient care, insufficient exposure of residents to key surgical procedures is a significant problem for residency programs. Objective To identify the most important reasons that lead faculty members to leave an academic facial plastic surgery (FPS) practice as well as features that may be associated with retention of FPS faculty. Methods Members of the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (AAFPRS) and the Association of Academic Departments of Otolaryngology (AADO) were administered an anonymous, online survey. For both groups, we evaluated demographic factors, reasons for choosing academic careers, contributors to faculty turnover, as well as strategies for retention. The frequency of the responses was analyzed. Results A total of 11.3% (135/1,200) of facial plastic surgery faculty responded to the faculty survey, with 59.1% (68/115) of current, academic surgeons participating, and a total of 16.7% (20/120) of department chairs responded to the chairs' survey. If a faculty member had left/was to leave, more control over practice was the most common reason between the two respondent groups. Of the five most important ways to increase faculty retention, more control over practice was the number one reason. Conclusion Chairs and facial plastic surgery faculty should strive to agree upon the amount of control over the academic practice to lead to higher retention, better patient care, and continued resident education. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|