Education Forum: Restrictive Covenants (Non-competes) in Orthopaedic Fellowships: What Every Resident Should Know Before Applying to Fellowship.

IF 2.3 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS JBJS Open Access Pub Date : 2024-06-14 eCollection Date: 2024-04-01 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.OA.23.00167
Joshua W Hustedt, Mark J Spangehl
{"title":"Education Forum: Restrictive Covenants (Non-competes) in Orthopaedic Fellowships: What Every Resident Should Know Before Applying to Fellowship.","authors":"Joshua W Hustedt, Mark J Spangehl","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.OA.23.00167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>More than 90% of orthopaedic surgery residents in the United States complete a fellowship program. While there is significant oversight of the educational process and rights of residents during residency, there is little standardization in fellowships in the United States. Applicants to fellowship need to be aware that they may be required to sign restrictive covenants (\"non-competes\") as part of the fellowship application or acceptance process. These restrictive covenants may be designed to protect the business interests of the host institution but may affect the fellow's ability to obtain employment in a geographic region.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A review of society websites designed to education fellowship applicants was reviewed. Information was gathered on whether the society provided information on restrictive covenants in fellowship programs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There is little standardization of restrictive covenants in orthopedic fellowships in the United States. Only accredited fellowships prohibit restrictive covenants in orthopedic fellowships. Pediatrics is the only sub-specialty society that provides information to applicants on restrictive covenants for fellowship applicants.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The current lack of standardization in the fellowship process means applicants need to be well versed in these restrictive covenants before applying. In turn, fellowships themselves, as well as subspecialty societies, should seek to be transparent in providing information on restrictive covenant requirements of their respective fellowships.</p>","PeriodicalId":36492,"journal":{"name":"JBJS Open Access","volume":"9 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11175871/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBJS Open Access","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.23.00167","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: More than 90% of orthopaedic surgery residents in the United States complete a fellowship program. While there is significant oversight of the educational process and rights of residents during residency, there is little standardization in fellowships in the United States. Applicants to fellowship need to be aware that they may be required to sign restrictive covenants ("non-competes") as part of the fellowship application or acceptance process. These restrictive covenants may be designed to protect the business interests of the host institution but may affect the fellow's ability to obtain employment in a geographic region.

Methods: A review of society websites designed to education fellowship applicants was reviewed. Information was gathered on whether the society provided information on restrictive covenants in fellowship programs.

Results: There is little standardization of restrictive covenants in orthopedic fellowships in the United States. Only accredited fellowships prohibit restrictive covenants in orthopedic fellowships. Pediatrics is the only sub-specialty society that provides information to applicants on restrictive covenants for fellowship applicants.

Conclusion: The current lack of standardization in the fellowship process means applicants need to be well versed in these restrictive covenants before applying. In turn, fellowships themselves, as well as subspecialty societies, should seek to be transparent in providing information on restrictive covenant requirements of their respective fellowships.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
教育论坛:骨科奖学金中的限制性协议(竞业禁止):每位住院医师在申请研究员职位前应了解的事项。
简介:在美国,超过 90% 的矫形外科住院医师都完成了研究金项目。虽然对住院医师在住院实习期间的教育过程和权利有严格的监督,但美国的研究金计划几乎没有标准化。研究金申请人需要注意,作为研究金申请或录取程序的一部分,他们可能需要签署限制性契约("非竞争性契约")。这些限制性条款可能旨在保护东道机构的商业利益,但可能会影响研究员在某一地区的就业能力:方法:对旨在教育研究金申请者的学会网站进行了审查。方法:审查了为教育研究金申请者而设计的学会网站,收集了有关学会是否提供研究金项目限制性条款信息的信息:结果:美国骨科研究员计划中的限制性条款几乎没有标准化。只有获得认证的研究金计划禁止在骨科研究金计划中加入限制性条款。儿科是唯一一个为研究金申请人提供限制性协议信息的亚专科学会:结论:目前的研究金申请程序缺乏标准化,这意味着申请者在申请之前需要充分了解这些限制性条款。反过来,研究金本身以及亚专科学会在提供各自研究金的限制性约定要求信息时也应力求透明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JBJS Open Access
JBJS Open Access Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Both-Bone Forearm Shaft Fractures Treated with Compression Plate Fixation in Adults: A Systematic Review on Adverse Events and Outcomes. Exploring the Performance of ChatGPT in an Orthopaedic Setting and Its Potential Use as an Educational Tool. Nonoperative Care Versus Surgery for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: An Application of a Health Economic Technique to Simulate Head-to-Head Comparisons. Collagenase Clostridium histolyticum Versus Needle Fasciotomy for Primary Metacarpophalangeal Dupuytren Contracture: Five-Year Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial. Reoperation Rate After Posterior Spinal Fusion Varies Significantly by Lenke Type.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1