Family physician satisfaction with two different academic compensation schemes

Abstract

Background and objectives: A growing body of evidence suggests that comprehensive relative-value-based incentive plans (CRVPs) are more effective at tracking and improving academic productivity than other types of academic compensation schemes (ACSs). However, there is little literature to date exploring physician satisfaction with CRVPs.

Methods: Physicians in two academic family medicine departments in Toronto, Ontario, completed an anonymous satisfaction survey. One of these departments used a CRVP to compensate for non-clinical activities; the control group used a monthly stipend based on full-time equivalents (FTEs).

Results: When compared with controls, physicians compensated by a CRVP were more likely to increase their involvement in non-clinical activities, to report being "very satisfied" with their ACS, to feel that their ACS made them "more likely" to continue working in their department, and to feel that their ACS was "fair."

Conclusions: Physicians in a family medicine department that used a CRVP felt a greater sense of sense of satisfaction and fairness in terms of their compensation for non-clinical activities. CRVP physicians also perceived an increased involvement in academic activities, were more likely to continue to work in their current department, and to feel that the compensation for non-clinical activities was adequate.