Chairpersons' opinions regarding quality control of surgical faculty performance in Japanese academic surgery departments

BACKGROUND: The governance and power structure of the department of surgery depends to a large extent on the chairperson's decisions in Japanese medical schools. This paper reports the current collective opinions of surgery department chairpersons regarding the quality assessment of surgical faculty performance. METHODS: Surveyed were 78 chairpersons of general surgery departments from 72 Japanese medical schools. Chairpersons were questioned about administrative and organizational decision making: rank order requirements for full-time surgical faculties, coordination of staff for surgical operations, and performance outcome measures. RESULTS: In all, 68 (87%) chairpersons responded. When selecting surgical faculties, publishing competence (45%) and collaborative personality (44%) were the two foremost concerns of chairpersons. Teaching experience (0%) and board certification (2%) showed the lowest rate for the first priority among the 6 elements listed. The operator was mainly decided by the chairperson (63%) whereas the rest of the operative team members were decided by either the chairperson (28%), a specialty team (38%), or attending surgeons (32%). Thirty-three chairpersons (49%) of 68 respondents used the morbidity and mortality conference as the only available approach for assessing surgical performance on a regular basis, whereas the remaining half did not have routine outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that surgery department chairpersons deemed collaborative personality and publishing competence the two major requirements for candidates of surgical faculties. Although the morbidity and mortality conference is currently the only available approach for assessing surgical performance, the majority of chairpersons felt that outcome measures should be based on more objective and structured criteria. (C) 2000 by Excerpta Medica, Inc.