Calling all Experts: Defining the Delta Between Fellows of the Surgical Infection Society (FSIS) and Society Members

Author(s):
Philip Barie; Lillian Kao; Lynn Hydo; Mayur Narayan; Laura Brown; Rondi Gelbard; Patrick Delaplain; Areg Grigorian; Negaar Aryan; Sebastian Schubl

Background:

The SIS has undertaken a program to develop and enhance expertise in surgical infectious diseases (sID,) initially among its members. A cadre of experts in sID will be positioned to consult with surgeons regarding management problems and participate fully in ID-related activities of the clinical enterprise (e.g., management of complex patients, stewardship, infection prevention/control, formulary) through recognition as FSIS. Initial FSIS designees (n=28) were selected by consensus (SIS Fellowship Committee [FC],) being largely SIS past-presidents.

Hypothesis:

We undertook this study to benchmark those recognized thus far, establish norms, and validate assessment tools for professional development available to all members.

Methods:

A survey (Google Forms; Alphabet Inc., Mountain View, CA) was sent to all SIS members including candidate, senior, and honorary members. The survey was mapped to a pilot assessment tool (FC-developed, SIS-approved) that described demographics, 7 domains of professional expertise (Table) and 19 domains of academic activity, e.g., society participation and advancement of the field (e.g., speaking, writing, grants) (data not shown.) For external benchmarking, the h-index of respondents was obtained (public domain; Google Scholar [GS]; Alphabet Inc., Mountain View, CA) for those with accounts, and with a sanctioned plug-in calculator to GS for those without.  FSIS were compared with all other respondents. Stats: Mean+SD, Wilcoxon, c², *p<0.05

Results:

Unique responses were received from 186/472 members (39.4%) including 24/28 (86%) of those recognized as FSIS. H-indices were obtained for 160 respondents (24 FSIS.) Mean scores were higher amongst FSIS designees for 17/19 activity domains (training grants and SIS committee chair service excepted,) and correlated closely with years of expertise, as did the number of domains of claimed professional expertise (both, p<0.05.) Additional results are presented in the Table.

Conclusions:

High degrees of experience and expertise of FSIS designees and the SIS membership are described across multiple domains. SIS remains a society of clinician-scientists with expertise also in injury biology and health services research. Although not different between groups (p=0.09,) 20 SIS members (11%) identified no area of expertise within sID. These data will inform decision making regarding qualifications and criteria for FSIS designation in the future, with the goal of fostering expertise among all members, for which there is demonstrated need.