Institutional solutions addressing disparities in compensation and advancement of emergency medicine physicians: A critical appraisal of gaps and associated recommendations.
Institutional solutions addressing disparities in compensation and advancement of emergency medicine physicians: A critical appraisal of gaps and associated recommendations.
复制标题
解决急诊医师薪酬和晋升差异的制度解决方案：对差距和相关建议的严格评估。
DOI：
10.1111/acem.14452
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Safdar,Basmah
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Madsen,TracyE;Heron,Sheryl;Lall,MichelleD;Blomkalns,Andra;Arbelaez,Christian;Lopez,Bernard;Lin,Michelle;Rounds,Kirsten;Sethuraman,KinjalN;Safdar,Basmah
背景三十多年来，急诊医学（EM）教师的工资和晋升的种族和性别差异一直存在。以前的研究主要集中在个人层面的解决方案。为了确定基于系统的干预措施，学术急诊医学学会（SAEM）于2018年成立了研究公平工作组，成员来自多个学院（急诊医学学术讲座学院[AACEM]、急诊医学学术管理人员学院[AAAEM]、急诊医学学术女性学院[AWAEM]，和急诊医学多样性和包容性学院[ADIEM]），并寻求EM部门领导的建议。MethodsThe工作组在多个阶段进行了包含开放式叙述和封闭式问题的访谈。第一阶段包括美国各地EM部门的主席的便利样本，第二阶段包括副主席和其他领导晋升和进步的教师。工作组从访谈中确定了共同的主题，然后根据参与者的回答制定了三个层次的建议（最低限度，目标和期望）。在第3阶段，迭代反馈收集和实施这些建议，从研究参与者和椅子参加全国AACEM webinar.ResultsIn从53个椅子，副主席，教师领导人来自美国各地的采访结果，我们注意到异质性的教师发展和促进过程中跨机构。从访谈中确定了四个主题：需要有一个有指导的、结构化的晋升过程;提供结构化的指导;明确轨道内晋升的要求;以及薪金结构的透明度。建议开发，以解决结构化的导师和公平的促进和compensation.ConclusionsThese建议为AEM部门的差距有可能增加结构化的导师计划，提高公平的促进和进步，并减少AEM劳动力的差距。这些建议得到了SAEM、AACEM、AWAEM、ADIEM和AAAEM的认可。
BackgroundDisparities in salary and advancement of emergency medicine (EM) faculty by race and gender have been consistently demonstrated for over three decades. Prior studies have largely focused on individual‐level solutions. To identify systems‐based interventions, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) formed the Research Equity Task Force in 2018 with members from multiple academies (the Academy of Academic Chairs in Emergency Medicine [AACEM], the Academy of Academic Administrators in Emergency Medicine [AAAEM], the Academy for Women in Academic Emergency Medicine [AWAEM], and the Academy for Diversity and Inclusion in Emergency Medicine [ADIEM]) and sought recommendations from EM departmental leaders.MethodsThe task force conducted interviews containing both open‐ended narrative and closed‐ended questions in multiple phases. Phase 1 included a convenience sample of chairs of EM departments across the United States, and phase 2 included vice‐chairs and other faculty who lead promotion and advancement. The task force identified common themes from the interviews and then developed three‐tiered sets of recommendations (minimal, target, and aspirational) based on participant responses. In phase 3, iterative feedback was collected and implemented on these recommendations from study participants and chairs participating in a national AACEM webinar.ResultsIn findings from 53 interviews of chairs, vice‐chairs, and faculty leaders from across the United States, we noted heterogeneity in the faculty development and promotion processes across institutions. Four main themes were identified from the interviews: the need for a directed, structured promotion process; provision of structured mentorship; clarity on requirements for promotion within tracks; and transparency in salary structure. Recommendations were developed to address gaps in structured mentorship and equitable promotion and compensation.ConclusionsThese recommendations for AEM departments have the potential to increase structured mentorship programs, improve equity in promotion and advancement, and reduce disparities in the AEM workforce. These recommendations have been endorsed by SAEM, AACEM, AWAEM, ADIEM, and AAAEM.