Comparative study of two critical care research program models

Background: Clinical research is an essential component of critical care medicine. Managed care limits physician time for research and dollars for support of research staff. This study compared 2 critical care research program models for financial solvency and productivity. Methods: Comparison was made between two research program models over a 2-year period. Model differences included: use of standard operating procedures in Model 2, use of on-call systems in Model 2, workload analysis in Model 2, increased delegation of workload to staff in Model 2, and increased unit staffing in Model 2. Comparative measures were: research income, number of research studies (industry sponsored and investigator initiated), and research staff (FTE). Faculty satisfaction was measured for Model 2. Results: Model 1 supported 5 industry-sponsored studies and no investigator- initiated studies. Model 1 average income/year was $58,000. Model 1 average salary obligation/year was $68,026 and supported 2.35 FTE's. Model 2 supported 24 industry-sponsored studies and 22 investigator- initiated studies. Model 2 average income/year was $234,210. Model 2 average salary obligation/year was $177,189 and supported 4.0 FTE's. Model 2 supported 1 NIH grant. Model 2 provided consulting for 3 multi-center clinical sepsis studies. Model 2 initiated a national critical care research network. An average of 65% of sponsored research and 31% of investigator-initiated research was conducted by Model 2 for faculty. Faculty rated their overall satisfaction of Model 2 as outstanding. Faculty rated 13/14 research activities conducted by Model 2 a mean score of above average. Conclusion: Model 2 resulted in increased research activity (sponsored and investigator-initiated), increased income resulting in revenue above salary expense, and overall satisfaction of faculty supported by the research program.