Impact of a productivity-based compensation system on faculty clinical teaching scores, as evaluated by anesthesiology residents.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether financial incentives given to faculty members for favorable teaching scores improve the quality of clinical education. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Large U.S. academic anesthesiology department. STUDY SUBJECTS: 61 academic and 72 clinical faculty members. MEASUREMENTS: Since, academic year (AY) 2004, as part of a comprehensive clinical and academic productivity-based compensation system, academic faculty members receiving higher operating room (OR) teaching evaluation scores from the residents have been rewarded financially. Clinical Faculty members also have been rated, but have not received incentives based on scores. Annual averaged OR teaching scores of each faculty member on a 0-9 scale, where 9 = best, were gathered anonymously with faculty classification (academic or clinical). Average overall scores and percentage of faculty with each score category (8.51-9.00, 8.01-8.50, 7.00-8.00, or <7.00) were compared between the pre-implementation (AY2002-AY2003) and post-implementation (AY2004-AY2005) periods. Scores between the academic and clinical faculty also were compared. MAIN RESULTS: No significant difference was noted in the average scores between the pre-implementation and post-implementation periods in a paired comparison (academic: 7.83 ± 0.48 vs 7.85 ± 0.50, P = 0.61; clinical: 7.54 ± 0.75 vs 7.66 ± 0.60, P = 0.21). No statistically significant change was noted in the composition of score categories in the academic (P = 0.63) or clinical faculty (P = 0.20) members. Overall, the academic faculty received significantly higher scores than the clinical faculty (7.84 ± 0.49 vs 7.60 ± 0.67, P = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: A productivity-based faculty compensation system did not appear to influence faculty OR teaching scores.

Financial Implications of Different Interpretations of ACGME Anesthesiology Program Requirements for Rotations in the Operating Room.

BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) standards for resident education in anesthesiology mandate required rotations including rotations inside the operating room (OR). When residents complete rotations outside the OR, other providers must be used to maintain the OR's clinical productivity. OBJECTIVE: WE QUANTIFIED AND COMPARED THE COSTS OF REPLACING RESIDENTS BY USING TWO DIFFERENT WORKING PATTERNS THAT ARE COMPLIANT WITH THE ACGME ANESTHESIOLOGY PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS: (1) the minimum amount of time in the OR, and (2) working the maximum amount of time permitted in the OR. METHODS: We calculated resident replacement costs over a 36-month residency period in both a minimum and maximum OR time model. We used a range of Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) pay scales determined by a local market analysis for cost comparisons. RESULTS: Depending on CRNA pay rates, the cost differentials to replace a resident in the OR between the minimum and maximum OR time models ranged from $236,000 to $581,876, assuming a 50-hour resident work week, and $373,400 to $931,001, assuming an 80-hour resident work week. This cost was per resident over the entire 3 years of their residency. CONCLUSIONS: Varying the amount of time residents work in the OR (as allowed under ACGME program requirements) has significant financial implications over a 36-month anesthesiology residency. The larger the residency, the more significant will be the impact on the department and sponsoring institution.