Reasons for faculty departures from an academic medical center: a survey and comparison across faculty lines.

BACKGROUND: Faculty departure can present significant intellectual costs to an institution. The authors sought to identify the reasons for clinical and non-clinical faculty departures at one academic medical center (AMC). METHOD: In May and June 2010, the authors surveyed 137 faculty members who left a west coast School of Medicine (SOM) between 1999 and 2009. In May and June 2015, the same survey was sent to 40 faculty members who left the SOM between 2010-2014, for a total sample size of 177 former faculty members. The survey probed work history and experience, reasons for departure, and satisfaction at the SOM versus their current workplace. Statistical analyses included Pearson's chi-square test of independence and independent sample t-tests to understand quantitative differences between clinical and non-clinical respondents, as well as coding of qualitative open-ended responses. RESULTS: Eighty-eight faculty members responded (50%), including three who had since returned to the SOM. Overall, professional and advancement opportunities, salary concerns, and personal/family reasons were the three most cited factors for leaving. The average length of time at this SOM was shorter for faculty in clinical roles, who expressed lower workplace satisfaction and were more likely to perceive incongruence and inaccuracy in institutional expectations for their success than those in non-clinical roles. Clinical faculty respondents noted difficulty in balancing competing demands and navigating institutional expectations for advancement as reasons for leaving. CONCLUSIONS: AMCs may not be meeting faculty needs, especially those in clinical roles who balance multiple missions as clinicians, researchers, and educators. Institutions should address the challenges these faculty face in order to best recruit, retain, and advance faculty.

Caries management by risk assessment in a cleft and craniofacial center.

Patients with craniofacial anomalies have an increased incidence of dental caries. The prevention program "Caries Management By Risk Assessment" (CAMBRA) has been previously validated but has not yet been introduced at a widespread level in a medical setting, particularly for this high-risk population.In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility of implementing CAMBRA during the medical visit at an institutional tertiary care center, which treats children with craniofacial anomalies. The study included 161 participants aged 1 to 18 years. Patients and parents received a personalized educational session, toothbrushing tutorial, and fluoride varnish application. We assessed the prevalence of dental caries, caries risk factors, and knowledge of oral hygiene in this patient population.The overall caries prevalence in this group was higher than average (57% compared with 42%, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). The most prevalent risk factors were developmental delay, deep pits/fissures, low socioeconomic status, orthodontic appliances, and carbohydrate snacks. The greatest predictors of dental caries were having 1 or more risk factors and having low socioeconomic status. In summary, children with craniofacial anomalies were at high risk for dental caries, with high rates of risk factors and low rates of preventive factors.Our findings revealed that basic oral hygiene standards are not being met in this high-risk population, highlighting the need for implementation of protocols such as CAMBRA. The results of this study can aid healthcare workers in craniofacial centers and children's hospitals to improve the understanding of oral hygiene and dental care of their patients.

Decisions, decisions: how program diversity influences residency program choice.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that students' feelings of fit with a residency program substantially influence students' ranking of the program. As diversity issues become increasingly focal concerns, we investigate how perception of gender and racial diversity of a program influences students' rankings of the program. We focus on students pursuing surgical specialties and ask whether diversity concerns are more prominent among applicants to surgical programs than among applicants to nonsurgical programs. STUDY DESIGN: We invited all interviewees at all residency programs at the Stanford University School of Medicine to participate in our study in the spring of 2009. Nineteen residency programs, amounting to 1,657 residency interviewees, participated. Sixty-eight percent (n = 1,132) responded to the survey. RESULTS: Women and under-represented minority applicants differ in their assessments from male and non-under-represented minority applicants because women applying to surgical programs and under-represented minority students are less likely than others to perceive their prospective programs as diverse. However, perceived program diversity is an important factor that positively influences the program ranking decision for women and minorities pursuing surgical training. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical training programs that promote gender and racial diversity will likely be more successful in attracting women and minority students because women and minorities are especially sensitive to program diversity in both their perceptions and rankings of programs. Promoting women and minorities within programs and connecting women and minority applicants to outreach programs and mentors is pertinent to the recruitment of these traditionally under-represented groups to surgical programs.

Principles of implant-based reconstruction and rehabilitation of craniofacial defects.

The final stages of reconstruction following craniofacial trauma or tumor resection often involve the fitting of prostheses. Development of osseointegrated implants for retention of prostheses has improved function and aesthetic outcome. Placement of osseointegrated implants requires coordinated care from multiple specialists and a lifetime commitment of the patient. The workup and surgical treatment algorithms for placement of intraoral compared with extraoral implants are discussed. The quality and quantity of bone available are the most important factors influencing design and placement. The long-term retention of implants is influenced by implant site, local tissue bed preparation, and hygiene. Osseointegrated implants are a part of the complete rehabilitation of patients with craniomaxillofacial defects. Although final fitting and maintenance of prostheses is completed by prosthodontists and patients, successful placement and preservation of implants is affected largely by the plan set forth by the reconstructive surgeon.