BACKGROUND Gender earnings disparities among physicians exist even after considering differences in specialty, part‐time status, and practice type. Little is known about the role of job satisfaction priorities on earnings differences. OBJECTIVE To examine gender differences in work characteristics and job satisfaction priorities, and their relationship with gender earnings disparities among hospitalists. DESIGN Observational cross‐sectional survey study. PARTICIPANTS US hospitalists in 2010. MEASUREMENTS Self‐reported income, work characteristics, and priorities among job satisfaction domains. RESULTS On average, women compared to men hospitalists were younger, less likely to be leaders, worked fewer full‐time equivalents, worked more nights, reported fewer daily billable encounters, more were pediatricians, worked in university settings, worked in the Western United States, and were divorced. More hospitalists of both genders prioritized optimal workload among the satisfaction domains. However, substantial pay ranked second in prevalence by men and fourth by women. Women hospitalists earned $14,581 less than their male peers in an analysis adjusting for these differences. CONCLUSIONS The gender earnings gap persists among hospitalists. A portion of the disparity is explained by the fewer women hospitalists compared to men who prioritize pay. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2015;10:486–490. © 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine

We present validity evidence in the domains of content, internal structure, and response process for a new checklist for rating inpatient progress notes. The scored checklist can be completed in approximately 7 minutes by a rater who is not familiar with the patient and can be done without extensive chart review. We further demonstrate that trainee notes show substantial room for improvement.

No abstract

Objective: Though salary models vary, a portion of physician compensation is often provided as a bonus, or incentive payment, based on clinical productivity measured by the relative value unit (RVU). However, many hospitalists are involved in activities beyond clinical work, either administrative or educational, that may be difficult to measure and recognize in bonus payments. Furthermore, the changing nature of physician and hospital reimbursement necessitates a focus on quality measures not incentivized in the traditional RVU model. Methods: The authors describe a compensation model in an academic hospital medicine program that was initially developed in 2010 and modified in 2013. The model incents clinical productivity and adherence to quality metrics while also promoting nonclinical academic and administrative activities. Results: Implementation of this compensation model impacted the division's quality goals by increasing completion of discharge summaries, reconciliation of discharge medications, and placement of follow-up appointment orders upon discharge. The impact on clinical and academic productivity is less clear. Conclusions: A compensation model that accounts for academic productivity and quality goals along with clinical productivity may be useful in incentivizing hospitalists in both academic and community-based hospital medicine practices. Future work should focus on whether such a model can be used effectively to address additional targets such as reducing readmissions and preventing hospital-acquired conditions.