Department or Division: Does it Matter for Plastic Surgery Programs?

As plastic surgery has grown, leaders within the field have advocated transforming plastic surgery divisions into independent departments. This shift raises critical questions regarding departmental identity, resource allocation, and potential administrative conflicts. The purpose of this study was to explore the potential implications of these institutional hierarchies from the perspective of plastic surgery program chairs. An anonymous online survey was distributed to chairs of accredited plastic surgery programs. Thirty-five of 103 (34.0%) individuals responded to the online questionnaire. Twenty-eight of 33 (84.8%) programs were classified as divisions of surgery, whereas 5 of 33 (15.2%) were independent departments. Nine of 28 (32.1%) respondents believed their division had lost patients to other surgical specialties because their program was not an independent department. Eighteen of 33 (54.5%) respondents believed that plastic surgery is negatively impacted when institutional programs are not independent departments. Respondents who indicated losing patients to other specialties, compared with those who did not, were 22.4 times more likely to be critical of institutional hierarchies (P=0.004). Respondents from independent departments were 12.6 times more likely to also express a negative view (P=0.049). Our findings provide a nuanced understanding of the institutional structures within plastic surgery programs. The extent to which institutional hierarchies negatively impact plastic surgery remains unclear. The significant association between patient loss and negative perceptions implies that direct clinical or financial repercussions strongly shape opinions. Moreover, chairs from independent departments may be more critical of institutional hierarchies because they have a deeper appreciation for the advantages that come with departmental status.