Ross McVicker Clinchy

Bio: Ross McVicker Clinchy is an academic researcher from SUNY Downstate Medical Center. The author has contributed to research in topics: Health care reform & Health care. The author has an hindex of 2, co-authored 2 publications receiving 13 citations.

The role of academic health centres in improving health equity: a systematic review.

Abstract: Academic health centres (AHCs) are organisations that pursue a “tripartite” mission to deliver high-quality care to patients, undertake clinical and laboratory research, and train future health professionals. The last decade has seen a global spread of AHC models and a growing interest in the role of AHCs in addressing health system equity. The purpose of this paper is to synthesise and critically appraise the evidence on the role of AHCs in improving health equity.,Peer-reviewed and grey literature published in English between 2000 and 2016 were searched. Articles that identified AHCs as the primary unit of analysis and that also addressed health equity concepts in relation to the AHC’s activity or role were included.,In total, 103 publications met the inclusion criteria of which 80 per cent were expert opinion. Eight descriptive themes were identified through which health equity concepts in relation to AHCs were characterised, described and operationalised: population health, addressing health disparities, social determinants of health, community engagement, global health, health system reform, value-based and accountable financing models, and role clarification/recalibration. There was consensus that AHCs can and should address health disparities, but there is a lack of empirical evidence to show that AHCs have a capacity to contribute to health equity goals or are demonstrating this contribution.,This review highlights the relevance of health equity concepts in discussions about the role and missions of AHCs. Future research should improve the quality of the evidence base by empirically examining health equity strategies and interventions of AHCs in multiple countries and contexts.

Status of pediatric anesthesiology fellowship research education in the United States: a survey of fellowship program directors.

Abstract: Summary Background Currently, very little information is known regarding the research education of pediatric anesthesia fellows. Objective The main objective of the current investigation was to evaluate the status of research training in pediatric anesthesia fellowship programs in the United States. Methods Survey responses were solicited from forty-six pediatric anesthesia fellowship directors. Questions evaluated department demographic information, the extent of faculty research activity, research resources and research funding in the department, the characteristics of fellow research education and fellow research productivity, departmental support for fellow research, and perceived barriers to fellow research education. Results Thirty-six of forty-six fellowship directors responded to the survey, for a response rate of 78%. Eight of fourteen (57%) programs with a structured curriculum had more than 20% of graduating fellows publish a peer-reviewed manuscript compared with only five of twenty-two (23%) programs, which did not have a structured research curriculum (P = 0.03). While the majority of program directors (thirty of thirty-six (83%)) did not think that fellows are adequately trained to pursue research activities, only a minority of program directors (7 of 36 (19%)) thought that an extra year of fellowship dedicated to research should become a requirement. Conclusion Structured research curriculum is associated with increased research productivity during pediatric anesthesia fellowship. Important barriers to fellows' research education include high clinical demands and lack of research time for faculty. Despite acknowledging the poor research education, a small minority of fellowship directors supports the addition of an extra year exclusively dedicated to research.