Academic health centres have historically treated patients with the most complex of diseases, served as training grounds to teach the next generations of physicians and fostered an innovative environment for research and discovery. The physicians who hold faculty positions at these institutions have long understood how these key academic goals are critical to serve their patient community effectively. Recent healthcare reforms, however, have led many academic health centres to recruit physicians without these same academic expectations and to partner with non-faculty physicians at other health systems. There has been limited transparency in regard to the expertise among the physicians and the academic faculty within these larger entities. Such lack of transparency may lead to confusion among patients regarding the qualifications of who is actually treating them. This could threaten the ethical principles of patient autonomy, benevolence and non-maleficence as patients risk making uninformed decisions that might lead to poorer outcomes. Furthermore, this lack of transparency unjustly devalues the achievements of physician faculty members as well as potentially the university they represent. In this paper, it is suggested that academic health centres have an obligation to foster total transparency regarding what if any role a physician has at a university or medical school when university or other academic monikers are used at a hospital.
- applied and professional ethics
- health care economics
- informed consent
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors All the authors contributed to the idea, drafting the manuscript, editing and approval of the final manuscript.
Funding This study was funded by Eli Lilly Fund.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data sharing statement There is no unpublished data from this study.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Managing conflicts of interest and commitment: academic medicine and the physician's progress
- What healthcare reform means for rural America
- Factors associated with academic rank among chronic pain medicine faculty in the USA
- Improving population health one person at a time? Accountable care organisations: perceptions of population health—a qualitative interview study
- Accountable Care Organizations: what they mean for the country and for neurointerventionalists
- Affordable medical technologies: bringing Value-Based Design into global health
- Racial and gender disparities in neurology
- Women in academic medicine leadership: correlation between sex of medical school deans and affiliated academic hospital system CEOs
- Address persistent racial disparities in academic medicine to improve healthcare quality
- Academic health science centre models across the developing countries and lessons for implementation in Indonesia: a scoping review