Department of Surgery Faculty Input Session Comprehensive Academic Planning Process

Tuesday, February 10, 2004 4:00 p.m. MSB 3351

 

Dr. Matthews started the meeting at 4:05 pm and gave an overview of the background of the Input Planning Process.   

Q1: What is your vision of UC’s leadership role in the 21st century?

• Leader in biomedical research
• Be the best known and best funded university in the state – to establish us as the state’s best & first university
• When people get sick in the state of Ohio and need specialized care they want to come to UC – transplantation, specialized trauma care, specialized pulmonary. 
• List services and innovations UC provides and look at outcomes and patient care.  Measure outcomes and have data to show we are the best.
• Relationship between having the best standard of care and having the best research.  Value and prominence in leading research programs. 
• Incorporate leadership in translational research
• NIH Roadmap translational and clinical research is now emphasized.  With new NIH leadership, UC should position itself to capitalize on this (e.g. K12 grant proposal)
• Where should UC be in NIH rankings?  COM should be in the top 10 for public universities in biomedical research.
• Should be in top 10% of GME programs in the country.  Areas:  dermatology, and other leader departments. Strong programs beget strong programs.
• Institution should not try and be top ten in ‘everything’.  It should be selective.  However, it should be known for being progressive.  E.g. graduate biomedical education.  Compete with schools in Midwest: Michigan, etc.
• Clinical excellence:  regional leader in cancer care and cancer research.  US population will age and will see higher impact of cancer in the population.
• Comprehensive Cancer Center is the model for more than cancer – take an area and develop the research side with the clinical side.
• Biointelligence may be the next “age” and other universities are putting money in this.  Biomedical engineering should have a high importance along with medicine.  Look for opportunities to link colleges – integration of programs, excellent programs that bridge colleges.  Links should be at the student level and the faculty level.
• Leader in training surgery leaders of tomorrow.  Looking at education and training of surgical leaders worldwide
• Opportunity to train the leaders of yesterday, e.g. continuing surgical education for advanced techniques.  Bring in junior and advanced surgeons. Links to the community. 
• Marketing at UC could be much better
• Ongoing surgical education center. Leader in ongoing medical education for Cincinnati and the region.
• We may already be there, but don’t have the perception.  We don’t have the word out.
• Safety net hospital for public health in the community.
• Interact more efficiently with pharmaceuticals and other industries outside of traditional NIH sources of funding.
• In era of limited resources, need structural changes in the institution. 
• Cincinnati has taken major hits in national media, and economically and socially we have suffered damage in the past 10 years. There could be tremendous value in Cincinnati with the reinvigoration of links with the community.
• Effort for the university to be an engine of economic growth. Research programs on campus have positive impact on the community.  Other areas of the country have translated these programs into products and new processes to make spin-offs that can help develop the economy in the region and locally.  UC would play in increasing role as a driver of economic impact in the region.
• Leveraging Intellectual capital to drive economy
• UC would be leading university in intellectual property momentum.
• War chest of resources and great minds and the talents are inside the walls and don’t go much farther.
• UC is known for co-op system and the ultimate co-op system is graduate medical education (GME).
• Translational and clinical research – there is a dearth of clinical research training in U.S. for scientists and we should be leader in the state and nation.
• We need to be more multidisciplinary.  Bring different disciplines together in training students and beyond.

 

Q2:  What strategic steps and resources are required to realize that future?

• With basic science department: needs restructuring. Currently the system is haphazard for research and education.  It obstructs interaction and graduate education.  Consolidate into one single graduate medical. Could save money.  Tremendous duplication of effort in graduate programs.  Mundane and subaverage curriculum and programs because it is not coordinated.  Enhance centers of excellence would consolidate and cut across silos.
• Committee structures would track this better
• Research track has to be rationalized and consolidate more. 
• More investment in cores is needed and investment in new technology, equipment, and facilities.
• In terms of how the community views the university – the vision should be that we are progressive university, should be to modernize the university – investment in the physical plant.  Would help develop and leverage the university economic impact on the region to bring regional funds back to the university. 
• Alignment of the funding with the strategic plan.  The Millennium Plan to recruit research faculty without research space – you can’t recruit faculty without space.  The vision is not aligned with the plan.
• Millennium plan as constituted is a disaster.  Empty laboratory space in the last 3 years which could have been used for recruiting investigators because of misjudgment of strategy in the institution.  Strategic use of space and funds should be in line with growth plans.
• Support for basic science is the same for clinical and translational research.  Support for is sparse and minimal.  Need training for … resources for administrative cores.  Coordinator pools:  available to investigators and students, statistical cores are needed and sample handling and laboratory cores – to process sample, label and archive. 
• There are 3 statistical cores here that are not known about, don’t interact.  There is multiplication and duplication of effort, time and money when funding is scarce.
• Resources and support needed for clinical mission.
• Resources are available, but at a high cost.
• Clinical Leader:  malpractice environment is threatening our practice and we need help.  Need to maintain revenue streams because of accelerating costs.
• Clinical: need data about clinical care.   Resources are needed for monitoring clinical outcomes.
• Outcomes can limit the vision of the university to the taxpayers.  Tieing outcomes and clinical research and basic science are things that can market and sell the idea that we are best at doing this.
• Physical plant:  support in resources and marketing to promote University Hospital as premier hospital in THA to get care.  More promotion of UC as an institution
• Interaction of The Health Alliance
• What is the benefit for UC for taking care of THA patients?
• CME to be developed as a revenue source.
• Intercollegiate cooperation:  UC sponsored programs as organized is a roadblock.  Much easier to coordinate with other institutions than to work with west campus.  Reduce bureaucracy.
• Compared to other institutions sponsored programs it is painfully slow.  The groups that exist are not helpful. They make you jump hurdles as opposed to offering help.  Would also reduce expenditures.
• Duplication of efforts on West and East campus is a bureaucratic snafu.
• Investment in IT.  Maximize use of IT so that we know what is going on inside East and West campus.  Better utilization of information and more accessible would recognize duplications
• IT support can now be computerized for medical services – enhances patient care and teaching and reduces nonproductive time.  More investment for research COM and clinical side can do this.
• Clinical material: research is limited because of a lack of clinical material.  Medical outcomes and prospective patients are not looking at the same thing.  Wait time in ER and patient friendliness need to be addressed

 

Q:  What outcomes should we hold ourselves accountable for in realizing this vision for UC?

• Ability to recruit graduate students, post docs, and clinical fellows
• Research money
• Research funding
• Research money
• Clinical market share in defined areas
• Average GRE, grade points, geographical distribution of students
• Achievement of specific accreditation.
• Where students go when they leave – what kinds of institutions do students leave for when they are done?
• Diversity and attracting, recruit and retain in biomedical research
• Clinical volumes
• High match numbers
• Growth of high end quaternary care programs where outcomes can be measured
• Performance at academic meetings, national leadership
• Growth in local and regional economic impact
• Increase in number of interdisciplinary research programs among colleges
• Increase in clinical volume and market share
• New approaches are developed at universities. The next step is to market the new clinical research, basic research.  New procedures, inventions, patents are good outcomes.  Development of intellectual property
• Public perception should not be that we will ‘do anything’.  Want to be a clinical leader and attract difficult cases. 
• Faculty retention is key measure. 
• Perception of revolving door for faculty who are leaving
• Recruit National Academy, Hughes Investigators on faculty

 

Summary

• Main goal to make the UC system “providers of choice” so that the average citizen would look to this system as the place they want to come to have their medical care.
• People in the community like their practitioner who trained here but doesn’t practice here. 
• User-friendly environment is important.  University Pointe may address these issues.  Being a leader in service assumes the outcomes are good.  Drudgery of getting here is limiting e.g. parking.
• Faculty left the university because of the politics and difficult systems in the university.  We need to embrace the outside community.  Be viewed as a regional asset for the community – in both directions.
• Embrace and not alienate those who were trained here.
• Strategic planning: surgery is a good model of an environment of interdisciplinary
• Departments need restructuring to have disease-oriented, programmatic thinking.
• Mission should include being a community resource.  This will reduce community relations problems.

 

Dr. Matthews thanked the faculty for attending the Input Session and were encouraged to send additional thoughts to him or to the UC CAPP web site.

 

Recorder: 
Julie Valente
College of Medicine
558-7336