Background

Scholarly activity is expected of program directors of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited residency training programs. Anesthesiology residency programs are cited more often than surgical programs for deficiencies in academic productivity. We hypothesized that this may in part reflect differences in scholarly activity between program directors of anesthesiology and surgical trainings programs. To test the hypothesis, we examined the career track record of current program directors of ACGME-accredited anesthesiology and surgical residency programs at the same institutions using PubMed citations and funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as metrics of scholarly activity.

Methods

Between November 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011, we obtained data from publicly available Web sites on program directors at 127 institutions that had ACGME-accredited programs in both anesthesiology and surgery. Information gathered on each individual included year of board certification, year first appointed program director, academic rank, history of NIH grant funding, and number of PubMed citations. We also calculated the h-index for a randomly selected subset of 25 institution-matched program directors.

Results

There were no differences between the groups in number of years since board certification (P = 0.42), academic rank (P = 0.38), or years as a program director (P = 0.22). However, program directors in anesthesiology had less prior or current NIH funding (P = 0.002), fewer total and education-related PubMed citations (both P < 0.001), and a lower h-index (P = 0.001) than surgery program directors. Multivariate analysis revealed that the publication rate for anesthesiology program directors was 43% (95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.58) that of the corresponding program directors of surgical residency programs, holding other variables constant.

Conclusions

Program directors of anesthesiology residency programs have considerably less scholarly activity in terms of peer-reviewed publications and federal research funding than directors of surgical residency programs. As such, this study provides further evidence for a systemic weakness in the scholarly fabric of academic anesthesiology.