Features of successful academic hospitalist programs: Insights from the SCHOLAR (SuCcessful HOspitaLists in academics and research) project

Gregory B. Seymann, William Southern, Alfred Burger, Daniel J. Brotman, Chayan Chakraborti, Rebecca Harrison, Vikas Parekh, Bradley A. Sharpe, James Pile, Daniel Hunt, Luci K. Leykum

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As clinical demands increase, understanding the features that allow academic hospital medicine programs (AHPs) to thrive has become increasingly important. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a quantifiable definition of academic success for AHPs. METHODS: A working group of academic hospitalists was formed. The group identified grant funding, academic promotion, and scholarship as key domains reflective of success, and specific metrics and approaches to assess these domains were developed. Self-reported data on funding and promotion were available from a preexisting survey of AHP leaders, including total funding/group, funding/full-time equivalent (FTE), and number of faculty at each academic rank. Scholarship was defined in terms of research abstracts presented over a 2-year period. Lists of top performers in each of the 3 domains were constructed. Programs appearing on at least 1 list (the SCHOLAR cohort [SuCcessful HOspitaLists in Academics and Research]) were examined. We compared grant funding and proportion of promoted faculty within the SCHOLAR cohort to a sample of other AHPs identified in the preexisting survey. RESULTS: Seventeen SCHOLAR programs were identified, with a mean age of 13.2 years (range, 6–18 years) and mean size of 36 faculty (range, 18–95). The mean total grant funding/program was $4 million (range, $0–$15 million), with mean funding/FTE of $364,000 (range, $0–$1.4 million); both were significantly higher than the comparison sample. The majority of SCHOLAR faculty (82%) were junior, a lower percentage than the comparison sample. The mean number of research abstracts presented over 2 years was 10.8 (range, 9–23). DISCUSSION: Our approach effectively identified a subset of successful AHPs. Despite the relative maturity and large size of the programs in the SCHOLAR cohort, they were comprised of relatively few senior faculty members and varied widely in the quantity of funded research and scholarship. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:708–713.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)708-713
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Hospital Medicine
Volume11
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2016

Fingerprint

Hospitalists
Hospital Medicine
Research
Organized Financing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Leadership and Management
  • Fundamentals and skills
  • Health Policy
  • Care Planning
  • Assessment and Diagnosis

Cite this

Features of successful academic hospitalist programs : Insights from the SCHOLAR (SuCcessful HOspitaLists in academics and research) project. / Seymann, Gregory B.; Southern, William; Burger, Alfred; Brotman, Daniel J.; Chakraborti, Chayan; Harrison, Rebecca; Parekh, Vikas; Sharpe, Bradley A.; Pile, James; Hunt, Daniel; Leykum, Luci K.

In: Journal of Hospital Medicine, Vol. 11, No. 10, 01.10.2016, p. 708-713.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Seymann, GB, Southern, W, Burger, A, Brotman, DJ, Chakraborti, C, Harrison, R, Parekh, V, Sharpe, BA, Pile, J, Hunt, D & Leykum, LK 2016, 'Features of successful academic hospitalist programs: Insights from the SCHOLAR (SuCcessful HOspitaLists in academics and research) project', Journal of Hospital Medicine, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 708-713. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhm.2603
Seymann, Gregory B. ; Southern, William ; Burger, Alfred ; Brotman, Daniel J. ; Chakraborti, Chayan ; Harrison, Rebecca ; Parekh, Vikas ; Sharpe, Bradley A. ; Pile, James ; Hunt, Daniel ; Leykum, Luci K. / Features of successful academic hospitalist programs : Insights from the SCHOLAR (SuCcessful HOspitaLists in academics and research) project. In: Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2016 ; Vol. 11, No. 10. pp. 708-713.
@article{973933af78c04427bc2ddb39512bd4a8,
title = "Features of successful academic hospitalist programs: Insights from the SCHOLAR (SuCcessful HOspitaLists in academics and research) project",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: As clinical demands increase, understanding the features that allow academic hospital medicine programs (AHPs) to thrive has become increasingly important. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a quantifiable definition of academic success for AHPs. METHODS: A working group of academic hospitalists was formed. The group identified grant funding, academic promotion, and scholarship as key domains reflective of success, and specific metrics and approaches to assess these domains were developed. Self-reported data on funding and promotion were available from a preexisting survey of AHP leaders, including total funding/group, funding/full-time equivalent (FTE), and number of faculty at each academic rank. Scholarship was defined in terms of research abstracts presented over a 2-year period. Lists of top performers in each of the 3 domains were constructed. Programs appearing on at least 1 list (the SCHOLAR cohort [SuCcessful HOspitaLists in Academics and Research]) were examined. We compared grant funding and proportion of promoted faculty within the SCHOLAR cohort to a sample of other AHPs identified in the preexisting survey. RESULTS: Seventeen SCHOLAR programs were identified, with a mean age of 13.2 years (range, 6–18 years) and mean size of 36 faculty (range, 18–95). The mean total grant funding/program was $4 million (range, $0–$15 million), with mean funding/FTE of $364,000 (range, $0–$1.4 million); both were significantly higher than the comparison sample. The majority of SCHOLAR faculty (82{\%}) were junior, a lower percentage than the comparison sample. The mean number of research abstracts presented over 2 years was 10.8 (range, 9–23). DISCUSSION: Our approach effectively identified a subset of successful AHPs. Despite the relative maturity and large size of the programs in the SCHOLAR cohort, they were comprised of relatively few senior faculty members and varied widely in the quantity of funded research and scholarship. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:708–713.",
author = "Seymann, {Gregory B.} and William Southern and Alfred Burger and Brotman, {Daniel J.} and Chayan Chakraborti and Rebecca Harrison and Vikas Parekh and Sharpe, {Bradley A.} and James Pile and Daniel Hunt and Leykum, {Luci K.}",
year = "2016",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/jhm.2603",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "708--713",
journal = "Journal of hospital medicine (Online)",
issn = "1553-5606",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Features of successful academic hospitalist programs

T2 - Insights from the SCHOLAR (SuCcessful HOspitaLists in academics and research) project

AU - Seymann, Gregory B.

AU - Southern, William

AU - Burger, Alfred

AU - Brotman, Daniel J.

AU - Chakraborti, Chayan

AU - Harrison, Rebecca

AU - Parekh, Vikas

AU - Sharpe, Bradley A.

AU - Pile, James

AU - Hunt, Daniel

AU - Leykum, Luci K.

PY - 2016/10/1

Y1 - 2016/10/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: As clinical demands increase, understanding the features that allow academic hospital medicine programs (AHPs) to thrive has become increasingly important. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a quantifiable definition of academic success for AHPs. METHODS: A working group of academic hospitalists was formed. The group identified grant funding, academic promotion, and scholarship as key domains reflective of success, and specific metrics and approaches to assess these domains were developed. Self-reported data on funding and promotion were available from a preexisting survey of AHP leaders, including total funding/group, funding/full-time equivalent (FTE), and number of faculty at each academic rank. Scholarship was defined in terms of research abstracts presented over a 2-year period. Lists of top performers in each of the 3 domains were constructed. Programs appearing on at least 1 list (the SCHOLAR cohort [SuCcessful HOspitaLists in Academics and Research]) were examined. We compared grant funding and proportion of promoted faculty within the SCHOLAR cohort to a sample of other AHPs identified in the preexisting survey. RESULTS: Seventeen SCHOLAR programs were identified, with a mean age of 13.2 years (range, 6–18 years) and mean size of 36 faculty (range, 18–95). The mean total grant funding/program was $4 million (range, $0–$15 million), with mean funding/FTE of $364,000 (range, $0–$1.4 million); both were significantly higher than the comparison sample. The majority of SCHOLAR faculty (82%) were junior, a lower percentage than the comparison sample. The mean number of research abstracts presented over 2 years was 10.8 (range, 9–23). DISCUSSION: Our approach effectively identified a subset of successful AHPs. Despite the relative maturity and large size of the programs in the SCHOLAR cohort, they were comprised of relatively few senior faculty members and varied widely in the quantity of funded research and scholarship. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:708–713.

AB - BACKGROUND: As clinical demands increase, understanding the features that allow academic hospital medicine programs (AHPs) to thrive has become increasingly important. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a quantifiable definition of academic success for AHPs. METHODS: A working group of academic hospitalists was formed. The group identified grant funding, academic promotion, and scholarship as key domains reflective of success, and specific metrics and approaches to assess these domains were developed. Self-reported data on funding and promotion were available from a preexisting survey of AHP leaders, including total funding/group, funding/full-time equivalent (FTE), and number of faculty at each academic rank. Scholarship was defined in terms of research abstracts presented over a 2-year period. Lists of top performers in each of the 3 domains were constructed. Programs appearing on at least 1 list (the SCHOLAR cohort [SuCcessful HOspitaLists in Academics and Research]) were examined. We compared grant funding and proportion of promoted faculty within the SCHOLAR cohort to a sample of other AHPs identified in the preexisting survey. RESULTS: Seventeen SCHOLAR programs were identified, with a mean age of 13.2 years (range, 6–18 years) and mean size of 36 faculty (range, 18–95). The mean total grant funding/program was $4 million (range, $0–$15 million), with mean funding/FTE of $364,000 (range, $0–$1.4 million); both were significantly higher than the comparison sample. The majority of SCHOLAR faculty (82%) were junior, a lower percentage than the comparison sample. The mean number of research abstracts presented over 2 years was 10.8 (range, 9–23). DISCUSSION: Our approach effectively identified a subset of successful AHPs. Despite the relative maturity and large size of the programs in the SCHOLAR cohort, they were comprised of relatively few senior faculty members and varied widely in the quantity of funded research and scholarship. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:708–713.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84991224477&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84991224477&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jhm.2603

DO - 10.1002/jhm.2603

M3 - Article

C2 - 27189874

AN - SCOPUS:84991224477

VL - 11

SP - 708

EP - 713

JO - Journal of hospital medicine (Online)

JF - Journal of hospital medicine (Online)

SN - 1553-5606

IS - 10

ER -