Evaluation of a Peer-Reviewed Career Development and Compensation Program for Physicians at an Academic Health Science Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Department of Pediatrics at the Hospital for Sick Children, which is funded by an alternative payment plan, has implemented a novel career development and compensation program (CDCP). Job activity profiles were used to more clearly define job expectations, benchmarks guided career development, and peer review was used to assess performance. The objective of this study was to evaluate the departmental pediatricians' satisfaction with the CDCP. METHODS: Pediatricians, all of whom had undergone CDCP annual reviews, could participate if they had undergone the in-depth triennial CDCP review. Each received a 5-point Likert scale-based questionnaire that asked how well the CDCP had conformed to the principles identified by the department during the development of the CDCP. Anonymous, confidential responses were collated and used to guide focus groups that discussed areas of greatest concern and attempted to identify solutions. Focus groups were led by external facilitators who were experienced in qualitative research. They audiotaped the sessions, transcribed the comments, and analyzed the data with the assistance of a qualitative analysis application. RESULTS: Sixty of the eligible 88 pediatricians participated, and 74% of their responses were that the CDCP had addressed the original principles "somewhat," "to a great extent," or "extremely well." The remainder indicated that some of the principles were either "not addressed" or "only to a small extent" by the CDCP. Results from the 11 focus groups (46 participants) indicated that the CDCP was an improvement over the previous method of career development and determination of the rate of remuneration. Most were also still in agreement with the purpose and design principles. Although they did not want the CDCP to undergo a major redesign, they identified areas that need improvement. Short-, medium-, and long-term action plans to address these areas are under way. CONCLUSION: Pediatricians at the health science center of the Hospital for Sick Children remain supportive of the CDCP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".