Garson et al.3
|
Total revenue increased 1%
Revenue per patient-care FTE decreased 2% (patient-care FTE increased, according to author)
|
Unfunded research decreased 12%
Grant dollars per square foot increased 12%
Percentage of basic researchers who held or applied for an NIH grant as principal investigator increased 35%
Percentage of researchers who supported at least half of the portion of their salaries allocated to research increased 6%
Faculty who had previously claimed research time with no research productivity shifted to patient-care time
|
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Cramer et al.6
|
|
|
|
Not assessed |
Sussman et al.7
|
20% increase in wRVU volume
Growth in wRVUs was “slightly out of proportion” to volume of visits; possibly related to an active coding–education and coding–auditing program
Improvement or no change in patient satisfaction after introduction of the system
|
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
|
Andreae et al.8
|
89% of faculty increased clinical productivity
Twice as many faculty as in previous year reached median for wRVU production
As a group, clinical productivity increased 20% in the first year after implementation; this increase “exceeded the market’s growth trends for primary care physicians”
|
Not assessed |
|
Compensation for the group increased by 8%
Percentage of increase in clinical productivity was 2.5 times greater than increase in compensation for the group; authors explained that this was due in part to the relative underproduction for the level of compensation at baseline
|
Tarquinio et al.9
|
|
Amount of research funding per physician-scientist grew by a compound annual growth rate of 9.3% before and 22.5% after implementation
Ranking of department according to NIH awards improved from 26 to 12 (there were concurrent increases in NIH annual budgets)
|
No change in evaluations by students or house staff, which remained very high (author communication)
Clinician-educators and physician-scientists reported spending less time teaching (50% and 43% respectively) and less time on academic services (67% and 49% respectively); no association with receiving research bonus
|
|
Miller et al.10
|
Not assessed |
|
|
Mean difference in total compensation narrowed between ranks
Variability in compensation increased in all ranks, especially at the assistant professor level
Distribution of total compensation “dramatically” changed in favour of junior faculty
|
Reich et al.11
|
|
|
|
Mean compensation increased by 40% (95% CI 29.0%–50.4%)
Compensation for instructors and assistant professors increased more than compensation for associate professors and professors (p < 0.001) both before and after implementation
Increased mean supplemental pay with relatively fewer faculty, and increasing workload undertaken by stable number of full-time equivalent faculty
Implementation of compensation model coincided with introduction of electronic point-of-care charge capture and submission system
|
Schweitzer et al.12,13
|
Not assessed |
In the school of medicine:
NIH grants increased from 39 to 127 during the 10-year period
Annual NIH funding increased by a factor of 7
Ranking according to NIH awards improved from 95 to 73 (of 124)
Total annual extramural funding increased from $20 million to $90 million (comparable increases observed in nursing and dentistry schools)
Number of full journal articles increased by 60%, with an increase in impact (as measured by standard impact metrics)
|
Not assessed |
Not assessed |