Retainment of U.S. Orthopaedic Surgeons in Academia from 2016 to 2022.

IF 2.3 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
JBJS Open Access Pub Date : 2024-03-25 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.OA.23.00111
Matthew Weintraub, David Ahn, Isabel Herzog, Dhruv Mendiratta, Zheshi Zheng, Neil Kaushal, Michael Vosbikian, Alice Chu
{"title":"Retainment of U.S. Orthopaedic Surgeons in Academia from 2016 to 2022.","authors":"Matthew Weintraub, David Ahn, Isabel Herzog, Dhruv Mendiratta, Zheshi Zheng, Neil Kaushal, Michael Vosbikian, Alice Chu","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.OA.23.00111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Academic medical centers greatly benefit from retaining their physicians; that ensures continuity in patient care, enhances resident education, and maintains a pool of experienced clinicians and researchers. Despite its importance, little research has been published on the retainment of academic faculty in orthopaedics. To address this gap, this study investigates the demographic trends of academic orthopaedic surgeons from 2016 to 2022. By analyzing data pertaining to gender distribution, years of practice, research productivity, and institutional rankings, we aimed to gain insights into the factors influencing faculty retainment, institution changes, and new entrants into academic orthopaedics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of U.S. academic orthopaedic surgeons affiliated with programs under the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) in 2016 and 2022 was performed. Faculty present in both the 2016 and the 2022 data were classified as being \"retained\" in academia; those present only in 2016, as having \"left\" academia; and those present only in 2022, as being \"new\" to academia. The retained group was then divided into movers (those who moved to other institutions) and non-movers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Retained orthopaedists had fewer years of practice, a higher h-index (Hirsch index), and more publications. Non-fellowship-trained orthopaedists had less retainment in academia, and orthopaedists with fellowships in oncology had more retainment in academia. Additionally, movers also had fewer years in practice but an equal level of scholarly productivity when compared with non-movers. Lastly, higher-ranked academic programs retained a greater proportion of orthopaedic surgeons.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Over the study period, a majority of orthopaedists (56.99%) chose to remain in academia. Those retained tended to be in the earlier stages of their careers, yet demonstrated higher research output. Notably, the representation of female orthopaedists in academic orthopaedics is on the rise. Conversely, lower-ranked programs faced higher turnover rates, highlighting the challenges that they encounter in retaining faculty members.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Academic medical centers benefit from retaining orthopaedic surgeons by maintaining patient relationships, having consistency in resident education, and building on clinical and research expertise. Likewise, orthopaedists benefit from understanding the trends in current academic employment, in order to optimize career planning decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":36492,"journal":{"name":"JBJS Open Access","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10959563/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBJS Open Access","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.23.00111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Academic medical centers greatly benefit from retaining their physicians; that ensures continuity in patient care, enhances resident education, and maintains a pool of experienced clinicians and researchers. Despite its importance, little research has been published on the retainment of academic faculty in orthopaedics. To address this gap, this study investigates the demographic trends of academic orthopaedic surgeons from 2016 to 2022. By analyzing data pertaining to gender distribution, years of practice, research productivity, and institutional rankings, we aimed to gain insights into the factors influencing faculty retainment, institution changes, and new entrants into academic orthopaedics.

Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of U.S. academic orthopaedic surgeons affiliated with programs under the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) in 2016 and 2022 was performed. Faculty present in both the 2016 and the 2022 data were classified as being "retained" in academia; those present only in 2016, as having "left" academia; and those present only in 2022, as being "new" to academia. The retained group was then divided into movers (those who moved to other institutions) and non-movers.

Results: Retained orthopaedists had fewer years of practice, a higher h-index (Hirsch index), and more publications. Non-fellowship-trained orthopaedists had less retainment in academia, and orthopaedists with fellowships in oncology had more retainment in academia. Additionally, movers also had fewer years in practice but an equal level of scholarly productivity when compared with non-movers. Lastly, higher-ranked academic programs retained a greater proportion of orthopaedic surgeons.

Conclusions: Over the study period, a majority of orthopaedists (56.99%) chose to remain in academia. Those retained tended to be in the earlier stages of their careers, yet demonstrated higher research output. Notably, the representation of female orthopaedists in academic orthopaedics is on the rise. Conversely, lower-ranked programs faced higher turnover rates, highlighting the challenges that they encounter in retaining faculty members.

Clinical relevance: Academic medical centers benefit from retaining orthopaedic surgeons by maintaining patient relationships, having consistency in resident education, and building on clinical and research expertise. Likewise, orthopaedists benefit from understanding the trends in current academic employment, in order to optimize career planning decisions.

2016 年至 2022 年美国骨科外科医生在学术界的留任情况。
背景:学术医疗中心从留住医生中获益良多;这可确保患者护理的连续性,加强住院医师教育,并保持一批经验丰富的临床医师和研究人员。尽管这一点非常重要,但有关骨科学术教师留任的研究却鲜有发表。为了填补这一空白,本研究调查了 2016 年至 2022 年学术骨科外科医生的人口统计趋势。通过分析与性别分布、从业年限、研究生产率和机构排名相关的数据,我们旨在深入了解影响教师留任、机构变化和新进入学术骨科的因素:我们对2016年和2022年隶属于美国毕业医学教育认证委员会(ACGME)项目的美国学术骨科外科医生进行了回顾性横断面分析。同时出现在2016年和2022年数据中的教师被归类为 "留任 "学术界的教师;仅出现在2016年的教师被归类为 "离开 "学术界的教师;仅出现在2022年的教师被归类为 "新加入 "学术界的教师。然后将留任组分为流动组(流动到其他机构的人员)和非流动组:结果:留校骨科医生的执业年限较短,H指数(赫希指数)较高,发表的论文较多。未接受过研究员培训的骨科医生在学术界的留任率较低,而接受过肿瘤学研究员培训的骨科医生在学术界的留任率较高。此外,与非流动者相比,流动者的从业年限较短,但学术生产力水平相当。最后,排名较高的学术项目留住了更多的骨科医生:在研究期间,大多数骨科医生(56.99%)选择留在学术界。留任者往往处于职业生涯的早期阶段,但研究成果较多。值得注意的是,女性骨科医生在骨科学术界的比例正在上升。相反,排名较低的项目面临着较高的离职率,这凸显了它们在留住教职员工方面遇到的挑战:临床相关性:学术医疗中心通过保持与患者的关系、住院医师教育的一致性以及临床和研究专业知识的积累,留住骨科医生。同样,骨科医生也能从了解当前学术就业趋势中获益,从而优化职业规划决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JBJS Open Access
JBJS Open Access Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信