Perceptions on Academic Rhinologist Compensation Models: An ARS Survey.

IF 1.8 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
OTO Open Pub Date : 2025-04-21 eCollection Date: 2025-04-01 DOI:10.1002/oto2.70107
Kiran Abraham-Aggarwal, Xiaoxuan Chen, Daniel J Spertus, Shriya Suresh, Andrew B Yang, Ashutosh Kacker
{"title":"Perceptions on Academic Rhinologist Compensation Models: An ARS Survey.","authors":"Kiran Abraham-Aggarwal, Xiaoxuan Chen, Daniel J Spertus, Shriya Suresh, Andrew B Yang, Ashutosh Kacker","doi":"10.1002/oto2.70107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the perceptions of American Rhinologic Society (ARS) members on the compensation models of academic rhinologists and their impact on clinical practice, teaching, and academic responsibilities.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Survey study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Academic rhinologists across the United States who are members of the ARS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A twenty-six-question survey was distributed to 295 ARS members. The survey collected demographic information such as years of experience, geographic location, practice setting, and consultation volume. It also explored various compensation models and their impact on compensation, patient volume, case types, and the ability to support teaching and academic responsibilities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 295 surveyed ARS members, 107 responded (36%), and 80 academic rhinologists were included in the final sample. Respondents varied in experience and geographic distribution. Most respondents were salaried (69%), while 63% were under relative value units (RVU)-based models, and 25% were under collections-based models. Additionally, 66% reported poor or no support for research and educational activities. Compensation models were found to influence patient volume (28%), procedure choices (14%), and academic duties, with 55% of respondents indicating reduced engagement with students.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although a plurality of respondents (39%) believed that salaried models are most conducive to balancing academic and clinical responsibilities, survey findings highlight a dissonance. Respondents under collections-based models were more likely to feel adequately supported (64.71%) compared to those under salaried or RVU-based models. This suggests that although many perceive salaried models as ideal for balance, collections-based models may better address financial and structural needs, emphasizing the importance of developing flexible, tailored compensation structures that align with individual and institutional goals while fostering academic productivity.</p>","PeriodicalId":19697,"journal":{"name":"OTO Open","volume":"9 2","pages":"e70107"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12010749/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"OTO Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/oto2.70107","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the perceptions of American Rhinologic Society (ARS) members on the compensation models of academic rhinologists and their impact on clinical practice, teaching, and academic responsibilities.

Study design: Survey study.

Setting: Academic rhinologists across the United States who are members of the ARS.

Methods: A twenty-six-question survey was distributed to 295 ARS members. The survey collected demographic information such as years of experience, geographic location, practice setting, and consultation volume. It also explored various compensation models and their impact on compensation, patient volume, case types, and the ability to support teaching and academic responsibilities.

Results: Out of 295 surveyed ARS members, 107 responded (36%), and 80 academic rhinologists were included in the final sample. Respondents varied in experience and geographic distribution. Most respondents were salaried (69%), while 63% were under relative value units (RVU)-based models, and 25% were under collections-based models. Additionally, 66% reported poor or no support for research and educational activities. Compensation models were found to influence patient volume (28%), procedure choices (14%), and academic duties, with 55% of respondents indicating reduced engagement with students.

Conclusion: Although a plurality of respondents (39%) believed that salaried models are most conducive to balancing academic and clinical responsibilities, survey findings highlight a dissonance. Respondents under collections-based models were more likely to feel adequately supported (64.71%) compared to those under salaried or RVU-based models. This suggests that although many perceive salaried models as ideal for balance, collections-based models may better address financial and structural needs, emphasizing the importance of developing flexible, tailored compensation structures that align with individual and institutional goals while fostering academic productivity.

对学术鼻科医生薪酬模式的看法:一项ARS调查。
目的:评估美国鼻科学学会(ARS)成员对学术鼻医师薪酬模式的看法及其对临床实践、教学和学术责任的影响。研究设计:调查研究。背景:美国学术鼻科医师协会成员。方法:对295名ARS会员进行问卷调查。该调查收集了人口统计信息,如经验年限、地理位置、实践环境和咨询量。它还探讨了各种补偿模式及其对补偿、患者数量、病例类型以及支持教学和学术责任的能力的影响。结果:在295名接受调查的ARS成员中,107名回应(36%),80名学术鼻科医生被纳入最终样本。受访者的经验和地理分布各不相同。大多数受访者是工薪阶层(69%),63%是基于相对价值单位(RVU)的模式,25%是基于收藏的模式。此外,66%的人表示对研究和教育活动的支持很少或根本没有。发现补偿模式影响了患者数量(28%)、手术选择(14%)和学术职责,55%的受访者表示减少了与学生的接触。结论:虽然多数受访者(39%)认为受薪模特最有利于平衡学术和临床责任,但调查结果强调了一种不和谐。与工资制或rvu模式相比,基于收集模式的受访者更有可能感到得到了充分的支持(64.71%)。这表明,尽管许多人认为受薪模式是平衡的理想模式,但基于收藏的模式可能更好地解决财务和结构需求,强调发展灵活、量身定制的薪酬结构的重要性,使其与个人和机构的目标保持一致,同时促进学术生产力。
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
OTO Open
OTO Open Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
115
审稿时长
15 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