CLINICAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Warren Gold, M.D., Chair
Meeting of January 24, 2001
PRESENT: Chair Warren Gold, Raymond Braham, Joseph Guglielmo, Susan Janson, Scott Soifer, Jane Weintraub
ABSENT: Vice Chancellor Haile Debas, Leslie Saxon, Richard Shafer
GUEST: Vice Dean David Irby
The meeting of the Clinical Affairs Committee was called to order by Chair Gold on January 24, 2001 in M688. A quorum was present.
Committee members are to review December minutes and contact Chair Gold regarding same via email.
Chair Gold reported on the two main issues discussed at the Leadership Retreat: 1) the possible site for the Moffitt-Long Replacement Hospital and the implications for the small schools and the Parnassus site-, and 2) Clinician Scientists’ report and related issues: how to encourage students to enter clinical research as a career and how to train them.
Chair Gold reported on the faculty responses to the crisis at UCLA when the Supervisors threatened to close Harbor General Hospital in 1995. The success in saving the County Hospital appeared to be due to active political activity by the faculty.
Report from P. Hopewell’s Office/Discussion of Scenarios Re: SFGH Potential Closure
Chair Gold reported that he anticipated receiving data very shortly from P. Hopewell’s office. He reiterated that the focus of this data and its attendant analysis is the academic impact of the potential closure of SFGH. Vice Dean Irby’s office provided historical data of students’ rotations through SFGH, and this data was distributed to the entire committee. This data shows that 30 – 35% of UCSF medical students depend on rotations at SFGH during the third and fourth year clinical rotations. Alternate sites, including Highland, CPMC, Moffitt, VAMC, etc. are already at capacity and could not handle the teaching load in the event of SFGH closure. Chair Gold will work with the Academic Senate Staff to finalize the draft report incorporating the various data as well as outlining potential scenarios as outcomes. The Committee agreed that any solutions that the Committee recommends need as their focus the realization of UCSF’s academic mission.
Chair Gold noted that there will be a $450 million bond issue on November ballot for a new hospital, although the plans contain no space for the academic mission. The Committee went on to discuss potential solutions to SFGH’s possible closure.
OPTIONS DISCUSSED AS RESPONSE TO SFGH POTENTIAL CLOSURE (ordered randomly):
- Work to keep SFGH open – educate all involved parties on benefits of SFGH partnership with UCSF and maintaining hospital as teaching hospital (e.g., residents provide tremendous value in delivery of patient care and the hospital has great value to SF businesses), work to involve UCOP in solution.
- SFGH Closes/Use Old SFGH hospital building as Academic Space – partner with groups working to build proposed new hospital at -the current site and to create necessary academic space in old SFGH hospital building.
- SFGH Closes/Build Wing Adjacent to New Hospital for Academic Needs – using University of Washington and Harborview in Seattle as one example (UW recently built wing adjacent to Harborview Hospital to house academic needs), involve UCOP in solution by UC investment in UC academic wing adjacent to proposed new hospital, perhaps sited at Mission Bay with the Moffitt-Long Replacement Hospital.
- SFGH Closes/UCSF Class Size Reduced And Fresno Programs Expanded – UCSF core affiliations (Moffitt, VA, Mt. Zion, CPMC, Davies, Fresno) cannot accommodate the approximately 30% of students who rotate through SFGH; thus, would need to reduce class size and increase Fresno programs to accommodate remaining overload.
Regarding option number 4, Vice Dean Irby noted that students at Fresno currently are happy with their experience but that a significant component of that satisfaction is likely related to its voluntary nature. He also noted recruitment issues relating to Fresno faculty. The Committee observed that long, mandatory rotations in Fresno, even if by lottery, would likely be a significant negative factor for students and housestaff applying to UCSF.
The Committee closed with discussion of distributing the Committee’s report on these issues to the schools. Then, the schools may add their voices to the discussion of the various potential solutions.
Sr. Senate Analyst