| pubmed-article:3982454 | pubmed:abstractText | Academic medical departments confront important changes in funding sources and consequent pressure to change faculty activities. Valid information has often been lacking concerning the existing relations of faculty activity to funding sources. We examined those relations in the Stanford Department of Medicine through a combination of randomized observations of faculty and faculty self-reports over a period of one year. For an average 62-hour workweek, there was approximate consonance between types of activities and sources of salary support. Sensitivity analyses indicated that even sizable errors in self-reports would not have changed the outcomes substantially. Over 60 per cent of the activity involved "joint products," representing two or more categories of activity. There was wide variation in activities and fund sources between divisions. Per full-time faculty equivalent, research generated far more income than the most lucrative specialty practice; thus, at least in this type of department, attempts to compensate for lost research revenue by intensifying clinical practice will probably fail and undermine present research activities. The method of analysis used here may be useful in improving prospective planning by departments and by larger medical-policy bodies, particularly in the public sector. | lld:pubmed |
