Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Plast Reconstr Surg ; 151(4): 901-907, 2023 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36729815

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patient reports of unprofessional conduct by surgeons have been linked to postprocedure complications and increased risk for malpractice claims. Coworkers are also positioned to observe and report unprofessional behaviors, including concerns related to delivery of competent medical care, clear and respectful communication, integrity, and responsibility. This study compared rates of coworker concerns between plastic surgeons and other physicians (other surgical specialists and nonsurgeons), and characterized whether plastic surgery subspecialties differed in their rates of complaints. METHODS: Coworker concern data from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2019, were retrieved from the Vanderbilt Center for Patient and Professional Advocacy's Coworker Observation Reporting System database. Specialty was classified as plastic surgery, non-plastic surgical, and nonsurgical. The plastic surgery cohort was further characterized by sex, medical school graduation year, predominant practice type (reconstructive only, aesthetic only, or hybrid), and postresidency training (ie, completion of a fellowship). RESULTS: The study cohort included 34,170 physicians (302 plastic surgeons, 7593 non-plastic surgeons, and 26,275 nonsurgeons). A greater proportion of plastic surgeons (13.6%) had one or more coworker concerns compared with nonsurgeons (10.8%) and non-plastic surgeons (6.1%) ( P < 0.001). The most prevalent concern category reported for plastic surgeons was clear and respectful communication. Among plastic surgeons who had no concerns versus those who had at least one concern, there was no significant difference when comparing sex, medical school graduation year, predominant practice type, or postresidency training. CONCLUSIONS: Plastic surgeons in this cohort study received more coworker reports than other surgeons and nonsurgical physicians. These data may be used by institutions to identify plastic surgeons at risk for preventable postprocedure complications and intervene with peer feedback intended to promote self-regulation.


Subject(s)
Malpractice , Surgeons , Surgery, Plastic , Humans , Surgery, Plastic/education , Cohort Studies , Professional Misconduct
2.
Plast Reconstr Surg ; 147(5): 1213-1218, 2021 May 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33890907

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Financial key performance indicators are often used to evaluate performance. Understanding of key performance indicators can be crucial for career advancement and bargaining leverage in resource negotiations. This study aimed to identify the most important key performance indicators used in surgical funding requests and understand how to use these metrics in clinical practice. METHODS: In two tertiary medical centers, funding requests for surgeon gap support (2019 to 2020) and equipment (2017 to 2019) within departments of surgery were reviewed. The requesting department, approval status, and amount allotted were recorded. In requests for gap support, projections for contribution margin, operating room volume, charges, collections, and relative value units were tracked. Projected contribution margin and cost savings were recorded for equipment funding requests. RESULTS: There were 40 gap support and 24 equipment requests, and all were approved. Most gap support requests included collections (90.0 percent), charges (87.5 percent), operating room cases (80.0 percent), relative value units (77.5 percent), and hospital contribution margin (77.5 percent). The most represented departments were general surgery (37.5 percent), neurosurgery (22.5 percent), and plastic surgery (15.0 percent). The departments that submitted the most equipment requests were general surgery (28.0 percent) and neurosurgery (28.0 percent). Most requests included projections for contribution margin (95.8 percent) and cost savings (87.4 percent). Projected hospital contribution margin correlated with the amount of funds allotted for surgeon support (r = 0.409; p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study identified the importance of using key performance indicators for a successful financial outcome in funding requests. In addition, the authors demonstrate the need for surgeons to understand their own key performance indicators. Surgeons should advocate for increased transparency to better understand their financial contributions and performance.


Subject(s)
Benchmarking/economics , Surgery, Plastic/economics
3.
Aesthet Surg J ; 41(7): 829-841, 2021 06 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32794545

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Aesthetic surgery is a critical component of academic plastic surgery. As institutions are placing increased focus on aesthetic surgery, there is an opportunity to identify factors that facilitate the creation and maintenance of successful aesthetic plastic surgery programs. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to conduct a national survey to evaluate the current state of academic aesthetic surgery and to identify factors that contribute to success. METHODS: A REDCap 122-question survey was developed and validated by members of the Academic Aesthetic Surgery Roundtable (AASR). The national survey was distributed to department chairs and division chiefs with active ACGME-approved plastic surgery programs (n = 92). Responses underwent Pearson's chi-squared, Wilcoxon rank-sum, and postselection inference analyses. AASR members convened to interpret data and identify best practices. RESULTS: Responses were received from 64 of 92 queries (69.6%). The multivariate analysis concluded traits associated with successful academic aesthetic surgery practices included the presence of aesthetic surgery-focused, full-time faculty whose overall practice includes >50% aesthetic surgery (P = 0.040) and nonphysician aesthetic practitioners who provide injection services (P = 0.025). In the univariate analysis, factors associated with strong aesthetic surgery training programs included resident participation in faculty aesthetic clinics (P = 0.034), aesthetic research (P = 0.006), and discounted resident aesthetic clinics (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The growth of academic aesthetic surgery practices represents a significant opportunity for advancement of resident training, departmental financial success, and diversification of faculty practices. By identifying and sharing best practices and strategies, academic aesthetic surgery practices can be further enhanced.


Subject(s)
Internship and Residency , Plastic Surgery Procedures , Surgery, Plastic , Esthetics , Faculty , Humans , Surgery, Plastic/education , Surveys and Questionnaires
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL