Can an Academic RVU Model Balance the Clinical and Research Challenges in Surgery?

The purpose of this study is to identify perceptions of academic surgeons regarding academic productivity and assess its relationship to clinical productivity. We hypothesized that these perceptions would vary based on respondent characteristics including clinical activity and leadership roles.

This retrospective, survey-based study was performed from August 26, 2019 to September 26, 2019.

The setting was academic surgical departments across the US.

The survey instrument was administered to faculty members of the Association of Program Directors in Surgery. A total of 105 academic surgeons responded.

Most respondents were Program Directors (59%) of general surgery programs. Of the participants, 30% identified as Professor, 36% as Associate Professor, and 15% as Assistant Professor. Respondents agreed that multiple academic pursuits or factors should count towards academic productivity including the following (in descending order): completing a first-authored manuscript (98.8%), completing a senior-authored manuscript (97.7%), chairing a national committee (94.1%), serving on a national committee (88.2%), completing a second-authored manuscript (88.0%), completing a first lecture (83.7%), completing a middle-authored manuscript (71.8%), completing a lecture (whether or not repeated) (70.9%), impact factor of journal (60.7%), and attendance at grand rounds (57.0%). Perspectives did not vary significantly based on surgeon demographics, clinical setting, or leadership role (p > 0.05).

Perceptions regarding what constitutes academic productivity and merit a reduction in clinical expectation are remarkably similar across multiple surgeon characteristics including demographics, academic title, leadership role, and practice environment.