scholarly journals A pilot study of the effects of faculty status for medical librarians in the United States

2021 ◽  
Vol 109 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sa'ad Laws

Objectives: Within many institutions, there are debates over whether medical librarians should be classified as faculty or professional staff, a distinction that may have considerable effect on the perception of librarians within their local institutions. This study is a pilot exploration of how faculty status may affect the professional experiences of academic medical librarians within their local institutions. Methods: Surveys were sent to 209 medical librarians listed as having some instructional function at Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) accredited medical institutions in the United States. Survey responses were captured using Qualtrics survey tool and analyzed for frequencies and associations using SPSS version 27. Results: Sixty-four medical librarians at academic medical institutions completed the survey developed for this study. Of the respondents, 60.9% indicated that librarians at their institution have faculty status, while 71.9% believe that librarians at their institution should have faculty status. Ninety percent of librarians with faculty status reported that they are expected to generate scholarly materials, compared to 28% of those without faculty status. Conclusions: Many medical libraries offer faculty status to librarians. While many medical librarians are active in instruction, research, and other activities normally associated with faculty status, it is not clear if faculty status impacts how librarians are perceived by other health care workers within their institutions.

Stroke ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsay A Bliss ◽  
Carol A Vitellas ◽  
Nayanika Challa ◽  
Vivien H Lee

Introduction: The lower proportion of women at the rank of full professor compared to men has been documented in nearly all specialties. Women are under-represented in academic stroke neurology, but there is limited data. Methods: We reviewed all 160 U.S. medical schools and the associated medical centers for vascular neurologists. An internet search of stroke team websites and neurology department websites was performed from August 1, 2020 to August 25, 2020. We included 117 academic medical centers that had at least 1 vascular neurologist on faculty. We included vascular neurology ABPN certified or board eligible (fellowship-trained) neurologists. Data was collected on sex, academic rank, and American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) certification status. ABPN board certification status was verified on the ABPN verify CERT website. Social medical women’s neurology groups were also queried for names of women full professor to cross check. Results: Among 540 academic ABPN vascular neurologists, 182 (33.8%) were women and 358 (66.3%) were men. Among academic ranks, women made up 108/269 (40.1%) of Assistant professors, 49/137 (35.8%) of Associate professors, and 25/134 (18.8%) of full professors. Twenty two academic centers had vascular neurology female professors on faculty, compared to 70 academic centers with male full professors on faculty. Twenty nine academic centers had multiple male professors on faculty compared to only 3 centers with multiple female full professors. Among women, 108 (59.3%) were assistant professor, 49 (26.7%) were associate professor, 25 (13.7%) were full professor. Among men, 161 (45.0%) were assistant professor, 88 (24.6%) were associate professor, and 109 (30.5%) were professor. There was a significant difference between academic rank based upon sex (p <0.0001). Conclusion: Among academic medical centers in the United States, significant sex differences were observed in academic faculty rank for ABPN vascular neurologists, with women less likely than men to be full professors. Further study is warranted to address the gender gap in the field of stroke.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joesph R Wiencek ◽  
Carter L Head ◽  
Costi D Sifri ◽  
Andrew S Parsons

Abstract Background The novel severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) originated in December 2019 and has now infected almost 5 million people in the United States. In the spring of 2020, private laboratories and some hospitals began antibody testing despite limited evidence-based guidance. Methods We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who received SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing from May 14, 2020, to June 15, 2020, at a large academic medical center, 1 of the first in the United States to provide antibody testing capability to individual clinicians in order to identify clinician-described indications for antibody testing compared with current expert-based guidance from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Results Of 444 individual antibody test results, the 2 most commonly described testing indications, apart from public health epidemiology studies (n = 223), were for patients with a now resolved COVID-19-compatible illness (n = 105) with no previous molecular testing and for asymptomatic patients believed to have had a past exposure to a person with COVID-19-compatible illness (n = 60). The rate of positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing among those indications consistent with current IDSA and CDC guidance was 17% compared with 5% (P &lt; .0001) among those indications inconsistent with such guidance. Testing inconsistent with current expert-based guidance accounted for almost half of testing costs. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate a dissociation between clinician-described indications for testing and expert-based guidance and a significantly different rate of positive testing between these 2 groups. Clinical curiosity and patient preference appear to have played a significant role in testing decisions and substantially contributed to testing costs.


2008 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Govind C. Persad ◽  
Linden Elder ◽  
Laura Sedig ◽  
Leonardo Flores ◽  
Ezekiel J. Emanuel

The standards for medical education in the United States now go above and beyond traditional basic science and clinical subjects. Bioethics, health law, and health economics are recognized as important parts of translating physicians’ technical competence in medicine into effective research, administration, and medical care for patients. The Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), which establishes certification requirements for medical schools, requires all medical schools to include bioethics in their curricula. Furthermore, issues such as the growth of genetic testing, end-of-life decision making for a burgeoning elderly population, confidentiality in the era of electronic medical records, and allocation of scarce medical resources make bioethics training clearly necessary for physicians. Although 16 percent of the United States GDP is devoted to health care, the LCME does not currently mandate training in health law or health economics. Furthermore, as the Schiavo case and HIPAA remind us, legal directives influence medical practice in areas such as billing, confidentiality, and end-of-life care.


2017 ◽  
Vol 124 (4) ◽  
pp. 1208-1210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaime Aaronson ◽  
Sharon Abramovitz ◽  
Richard Smiley ◽  
Virginia Tangel ◽  
Ruth Landau

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 235-239
Author(s):  
Emma K. T. Benn ◽  
Chengcheng Tu ◽  
Ann-Gel S. Palermo ◽  
Luisa N. Borrell ◽  
Michaela Kiernan ◽  
...  

As clinical researchers at academic medical institutions across the United States increasingly manage complex clinical databases and registries, they often lack the statistical expertise to utilize the data for research purposes. This statistical inadequacy prevents junior investigators from disseminating clinical findings in peer-reviewed journals and from obtaining research funding, thereby hindering their potential for promotion. Underrepresented minorities, in particular, confront unique challenges as clinical investigators stemming from a lack of methodologically rigorous research training in their graduate medical education. This creates a ripple effect for them with respect to acquiring full-time appointments, obtaining federal research grants, and promotion to leadership positions in academic medicine. To fill this major gap in the statistical training of junior faculty and fellows, the authors developed the Applied Statistical Independence in Biological Systems (ASIBS) Short Course. The overall goal of ASIBS is to provide formal applied statistical training, via a hybrid distance and in-person learning format, to junior faculty and fellows actively involved in research at US academic medical institutions, with a special emphasis on underrepresented minorities. The authors present an overview of the design and implementation of ASIBS, along with a short-term evaluation of its impact for the first cohort of ASIBS participants.


1988 ◽  
Vol 19 (12) ◽  
pp. 1369-1371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Anderson ◽  
Rolla B. Hill

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document