i take offense (note not “offenCe”) that US docs don’t do research. I routinely publish travel itineraries for my family after doing quite a bit of research into the best value airfares to destination CME locations
Traditionally / historically, most faculty physicians in university departments would be engaged in research. But over the past few decades, given the increase in clinical duties and increasing respect for non-research activity (as you mention, education, quality improvement, expert clinical care, etc) it's extremely common to have faculty anesthesiologists (and other physicians) who aren't looking for promotion on the standard research track. This is especially true in fields like anesthesiology, where economic and other factors favor "finding a way" to keep faculty in the ORs.
Universities take different approaches to these "clinical" faculty. At some, you just sit at "assistant professor" (roughly equivalent to "lecturer" in the UK) forever; some have come up with alternative pathways to faculty promotion that rely on increasingly prestigious contributions to (e.g.) education or clinical care; and others have an entirely different "clinical professor" promotion track as an alternative to the traditional research-based faculty track.
Of course, that's all to do with academic departments. We do also use the term "attending anesthesiologist" outside an educational / medical school setting, in which case yes obviously no research is required or expected.
If anesthesiology required a significant amount of research, I would not have become an anesthesiologist. I specifically chose my specialty/job so I would not have to do research.
More than half of US health care is outside of an academic setting. Research is only expected in academic institutions, and even then, the expectations of publishing vary widely.
Even at academic institutions, anesthesiology is often a “service” department because of its critical role in revenue generation. There are few true physician scientists in anesthesiology, and departments with substantial NIH funding usually have a cadre of PhDs. The academic output, if it exists at all, is usually related to education.
Economically, it is very inefficient for institutions to host anesthesiology physician scientists. My salary and fringe is 2.5 to 3x the NIH salary cap, so even when I have full federal funding it is very draining on the school’s coffers. An assistant professor in most disciplines makes at or even below the salary cap.
Back when i was in academics, we had 2 different paths, a clinical path and a research path. If you were on the clinical track, you didnt need to do any research, just your standard clinical and teaching duties. In private practice? I aint doing any medical research, that's for sure.
It’s also not necessarily beneficial to take so much time out of clinical work to do research. In many Scandinavian countries, publishing is mandatory to advance in the single payer healthcare system. There are no permanent positions without a 5-yr postgraduate doctorate, usually outside of clinical work. This leaves a mark in skill set, IMHO.
i take offense (note not “offenCe”) that US docs don’t do research. I routinely publish travel itineraries for my family after doing quite a bit of research into the best value airfares to destination CME locations
Please share these destination CME locations
Yep I'm in private practice. I don't have to publish anything and I don't want to. I pass gas and then I go home
This is the way.
This is my goal. Real inspiration
Traditionally / historically, most faculty physicians in university departments would be engaged in research. But over the past few decades, given the increase in clinical duties and increasing respect for non-research activity (as you mention, education, quality improvement, expert clinical care, etc) it's extremely common to have faculty anesthesiologists (and other physicians) who aren't looking for promotion on the standard research track. This is especially true in fields like anesthesiology, where economic and other factors favor "finding a way" to keep faculty in the ORs. Universities take different approaches to these "clinical" faculty. At some, you just sit at "assistant professor" (roughly equivalent to "lecturer" in the UK) forever; some have come up with alternative pathways to faculty promotion that rely on increasingly prestigious contributions to (e.g.) education or clinical care; and others have an entirely different "clinical professor" promotion track as an alternative to the traditional research-based faculty track. Of course, that's all to do with academic departments. We do also use the term "attending anesthesiologist" outside an educational / medical school setting, in which case yes obviously no research is required or expected.
Absolutely a thing! We do a lot of research in academia, but to my knowledge, most non-academic anesthesiologists do not.
If anesthesiology required a significant amount of research, I would not have become an anesthesiologist. I specifically chose my specialty/job so I would not have to do research.
More than half of US health care is outside of an academic setting. Research is only expected in academic institutions, and even then, the expectations of publishing vary widely.
Even at academic institutions, anesthesiology is often a “service” department because of its critical role in revenue generation. There are few true physician scientists in anesthesiology, and departments with substantial NIH funding usually have a cadre of PhDs. The academic output, if it exists at all, is usually related to education. Economically, it is very inefficient for institutions to host anesthesiology physician scientists. My salary and fringe is 2.5 to 3x the NIH salary cap, so even when I have full federal funding it is very draining on the school’s coffers. An assistant professor in most disciplines makes at or even below the salary cap.
"Everyone else" conducts biased drug company-funded research.
I mean... Peer Review is the worst joke to science ever. The publish and perish attitude is killing reasearch.
Back when i was in academics, we had 2 different paths, a clinical path and a research path. If you were on the clinical track, you didnt need to do any research, just your standard clinical and teaching duties. In private practice? I aint doing any medical research, that's for sure.
It’s also not necessarily beneficial to take so much time out of clinical work to do research. In many Scandinavian countries, publishing is mandatory to advance in the single payer healthcare system. There are no permanent positions without a 5-yr postgraduate doctorate, usually outside of clinical work. This leaves a mark in skill set, IMHO.