Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery (Jul 2022)

Program characteristics of cardiothoracic surgery departments versus divisions

  • Lisa M. Soler,
  • Raymond A. Lopez,
  • Kyle J. Hornbuckle,
  • Robert J. Dabal,
  • Herbert Chen,
  • Rongbing Xie,
  • Panos N. Vardas

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-022-01913-8
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 17, no. 1
pp. 1 – 7

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background The organizational structure of cardiothoracic surgery practices varies among different programs throughout the United States (U.S.). We aimed to investigate the characteristics of the top ranked programs within the specialty and the surgeons practicing within each. Methods The top 50 hospitals for adult cardiology and heart surgery were identified using the US News and World Report 2019–20 ranking. There were 590 hospitals reported on, with 50 top rated programs. Data was collected from each hospital’s website, analyses conducted using SAS 9.4 with statistical significance set at p ≤ 0.05. Results When comparing cardiothoracic surgery program organizational structures, 21 of the top 50 ranked programs were departments and 24 were divisions within their respective Department of Surgery. Mean number of surgeons was 11 with no statistical difference when analyzed by division versus department. Overall, 9% of practicing cardiothoracic surgeons were female. Between programs that are a department versus division, general thoracic surgery was included in 58% of divisions and 52% of departments (p = ns). Among programs that were departments, approximately 6% of surgeons had attained a Ph.D., while in divisions approximately 4% of surgeons had attained a Ph.D. Conclusions The top 50 Cardiothoracic Surgery programs in the U.S. have approximately the same number of surgeons within the group and are organized similarly. This study group had a slightly higher percentage of female surgeons than has previously been noted in cardiothoracic surgery, with general thoracic surgery trending toward higher gender diversity. The presence of physician scientists was low, though similar amongst the study groups.

Keywords