• David A Lubarsky and J Gerald Reves.
• Department of Anesthesiology, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.
• J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2005 Sep 1;201(3):434-7.

BackgroundMany large academic practices have accepted the notion that subspecialization provides certain benefits-more consistent care, a higher degree of state-of-the-art knowledge, improved teaching, and better working relationships and communication among the subspecialty anesthesia faculty and their surgical and nursing colleagues. But a rigid subspecialty grouping is rarely done in the main body of an academic faculty.Study DesignTo evaluate if subspecialization provides greater satisfaction for an academic general services anesthesia faculty, a survey about work conditions and perceptions was undertaken before and after reorganization of a large academic practice. Scores for each question were on a scale of 1 to 5.ResultsAlthough there was a sense that excellent expert care was more often delivered after subspecialty reorganization, the overall faculty impression of their workplace was not markedly changed (prereorganization 3.52 +/- .56; postreorganization 3.60 +/- .34 [mean score +/- SD]; p = NS).ConclusionsThe faculty did not perceive an overall benefit from a move to greater subspecialization in the organization of the anesthesia department, despite the leadership's opinion that the workplace had become much more functional and productive.

14 keywords...

hide…