CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2019; 23(02): 209-217
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1675188
Original Research
Thieme Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Facial Plastic Surgery Faculty Turnover: Survey of Academic Facial Plastic Surgeons and Department Chairs

1   Department of Otolaryngology, The University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, United States
J Randall Jordan
1   Department of Otolaryngology, The University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, United States
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen


28. Mai 2018

05. August 2018

15. Februar 2019 (online)


Introduction The turnover and inability to consistently retain academic facial plastic surgeons is an issue that many academic departments of otolaryngology face. In addition to the financial costs of staff turnover and gaps in patient care, insufficient exposure of residents to key surgical procedures is a significant problem for residency programs.

Objective To identify the most important reasons that lead faculty members to leave an academic facial plastic surgery (FPS) practice as well as features that may be associated with retention of FPS faculty.

Methods Members of the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (AAFPRS) and the Association of Academic Departments of Otolaryngology (AADO) were administered an anonymous, online survey. For both groups, we evaluated demographic factors, reasons for choosing academic careers, contributors to faculty turnover, as well as strategies for retention. The frequency of the responses was analyzed.

Results A total of 11.3% (135/1,200) of facial plastic surgery faculty responded to the faculty survey, with 59.1% (68/115) of current, academic surgeons participating, and a total of 16.7% (20/120) of department chairs responded to the chairs' survey. If a faculty member had left/was to leave, more control over practice was the most common reason between the two respondent groups. Of the five most important ways to increase faculty retention, more control over practice was the number one reason.

Conclusion Chairs and facial plastic surgery faculty should strive to agree upon the amount of control over the academic practice to lead to higher retention, better patient care, and continued resident education.

  • References

  • 1 Straus SE, Straus C, Tzanetos K. ; International Campaign to Revitalise Academic Medicine. Career choice in academic medicine: systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 2006; 21 (12) 1222-1229
  • 2 Pololi LH, Krupat E, Civian JT, Ash AS, Brennan RT. Why are a quarter of faculty considering leaving academic medicine? A study of their perceptions of institutional culture and intentions to leave at 26 representative U.S. medical schools. Acad Med 2012; 87 (07) 859-869
  • 3 Rao SK, Kimball AB, Lehrhoff SR. , et al. The impact of administrative burden on academic physicians: results of a hospital-wide physician survey. Acad Med 2017; 92 (02) 237-243
  • 4 Wai PY, Dandar V, Radosevich DM, Brubaker L, Kuo PC. Engagement, workplace satisfaction, and retention of surgical specialists in academic medicine in the United States. J Am Coll Surg 2014; 219 (01) 31-42
  • 5 Zetrenne E, Kosins AM, Wirth GA, Bui A, Evans GRD, Wells JH. Academic plastic surgery: a study of current issues and future challenges. Ann Plast Surg 2008; 60 (06) 679-683
  • 6 PwC Health Research Institute. The future of the academic medical center: strategies to avoid a margin meltdown. February 2012.
  • 7 Jumaily JS, Spiegel JH. The unique practice needs of academic facial plastic and reconstructive surgeons. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2015; 17 (05) 384-385
  • 8 Pololi L, Knight S. Mentoring faculty in academic medicine. A new paradigm?. J Gen Intern Med 2005; 20 (09) 866-870