Looking forward to promotion: characteristics of participants in the Prospective Study of Promotion in Academia

Counternarratives that illuminate faculty agency: A five-year longitudinal qualitative study of physician educators in academic medicine

PURPOSE

Physician educators are often expected to direct educational programs and assume roles that conform to field norms for career advancement but that may not afford meaningful work for educators. The purpose of this study was to describe and analyse the perspectives and actions taken by physician educators in response to tension between feeling compelled to direct an educational program and doing educationally meaningful work.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We used data from a longitudinal study and focused on three participants who, over the course of the five-year study, offered significant insights into how physician educators act in ways that run counter to expectations for career advancement. Our narrative analysis entailed organizing data from interview transcripts into time-ordered displays, weaving data into counternarratives that were edited by participants, and using the theory of faculty agency (and its key constructs, strategic perspectives and strategic action) to thread the stories together.

RESULTS

In each counternarrative, the participant deliberated their sense of being a physician educator (strategic perspectives) and when expectations became untenable, they did what they needed to do to engage in meaningful work (strategic action) rather than comply with expectations for career advancement in academic medicine. For one participant, faculty agency meant leaving academic medicine; for another, it meant reducing clinical time so that unpaid time could be devoted to education; and for another, it meant opting not do direct a reputable education program.

CONCLUSIONS

Faculty agency is a useful theoretical lens for conceptualizing how physician educators navigate their careers in academic medicine. Counternarratives that illuminate faculty agency offer stories that describe alternate career paths and portend a different future for physician educators.

Faculty Experiences Related to Career Advancement and Success in Academic Medicine

Phenomenon: Faculty career success in academic medicine is complex. Dynamic interactions among faculty and between faculty and their socio-cultural working environments contribute to the mystique of academic advancement. There are few empirical studies that analyze the social practice of faculty career advancement in academic medicine, especially those that focus on relations between individual and environmental contexts. This study aimed to investigate various faculty members' experiences around career advancement in a medical school. Through the analytical lens of Bourdieu's theory of practice, we focused on the relationship among individuals, positions, and environmental contexts.Approach: Following a general process of interpretive grounded theory, we collected faculty members' perceptions and experiences related to their career development and advancement via in-depth semi structured-interviews of 23 faculty at a medical school in the United States. We analyzed the interview transcripts using thematic and constant-comparison analyses, informed by Bourdieu's theory of practice emphasizing the concepts of habitus, field, doxa, illusio, and capital.Findings: While there was a general perception of collaborative success in the school, access to resources seemed to be unequally distributed and linked to faculty positions. Career opportunities, such as leadership and promotion, were mostly granted by leaders based on interpersonal relationships (social capital). Clinical faculty's limited access to professional development activities (cultural capital), including research, limited their likelihood for promotion (symbolic capital) at the school. An institutional emphasis on clinical productivity reinforced clinical faculty's constraints on academic scholarship, which led to perceived inequities by clinical faculty. Participants also perceived subtle gender bias and an unequal distribution of power among the specialties, which contradicted a culture of collaboration and support in the school.Insights: Complex power structures influence faculty career success. Unequal access and differential power among faculty positions resulted in disparities in career advancement. Greater transparency, equity, and inclusivity are obvious suggestions for change to allow all faculty to benefit from essential resources and career building opportunities. Furthermore, building high-quality relationships between leaders and faculty and mutual respect between specialties are essential to sustaining an organizational culture conducive to career success for all faculty. Faculty will benefit from a greater awareness of the structural and normative aspects of a medical school that are less obvious and more difficult to change. This is the value of applying Bourdieu's theory of practice to the socio-cultural dynamics of the medical school.

A decade of faculty development for health professions educators: lessons learned from the Macy Faculty Scholars Program

Faculty development (FD) programs are critical for providing the knowledge and skills necessary to drive positive change in health professions education, but they take many forms to attain the program goals. The Macy Faculty Scholars Program (MFSP), created by the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation (JMJF) in 2010, intends to develop participants as leaders, scholars, teachers, and mentors. After a decade of implementation, an external review committee conducted a program evaluation to determine how well the program met its intended goals and defined options for ongoing improvement.The committee selected Stufflebeam's CIPP (context, input, process, products) framework to guide the program evaluation. Context and input components were derived from the MFSP description and demographic data, respectively. Process and product components were obtained through a mixed-methods approach, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative data obtained from participant survey responses, and curriculum vitae (CV).The evaluation found participants responded favorably to the program and demonstrated an overall increase in academic productivity, most pronounced during the two years of the program. Mentorship, community of practice, and protected time were cited as major strengths. Areas for improvement included: enhancing the diversity of program participants, program leaders and mentors across multiple sociodemographic domains; leveraging technology to strengthen the MFSP community of practice; and improving flexibility of the program.The program evaluation results provide evidence supporting ongoing investment in faculty educators and summarizes key strengths and areas for improvement to inform future FD efforts for both the MFSP and other FD programs.

Mission Critical: Reimagining Promotion for Clinician-Educators

Academic clinician-educators who teach health professions trainees and lead educational programs have been penalized by the mismatch between their daily contributions to the academic mission and traditional promotion criteria focused on peer-reviewed publications and external reputation. Despite two decades of incremental approaches, inconsistency and inequity persist in the promotion process for clinician-educators. The authors propose five steps to mark a new approach to academic advancement for clinician-educators: (1) elevate the scholarly approach to teaching over peer-reviewed publications; (2) allow clinician-educators to identify an area of focus; (3) broaden the evidence for educational excellence; (4) prioritize internal referees; and (5) increase clinician-educator representation on promotion committees. Achieving meaningful change requires transforming entrenched traditions and policies at multiple levels. Changes that advance equity are necessary to retain academic faculty members who train the next generation of health professionals.

Does Research Training lead to Academic Success in Orthopedic Surgery? An Analysis of U.S Academic Orthopedic Surgeons

BACKGROUND

Academic surgeons are invaluable for scientific advancement and training the next generation of orthopedic surgeons.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe a cohort of academic orthopedic surgeons currently in practice with common academic metrics.

METHODS

ACGME-accredited orthopedic surgery programs with a university affiliation were identified. The primary independent variable in this study was formal research training as defined by a research fellowship or attainment of a PhD. Outcomes included academic rank, h-index attained, number of publications, and funding by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

RESULTS

1641 orthopedic surgeons were identified across 73 programs. 116 surgeons (7.07%) received formal academic research training. The academic training group and non-academic training group had a similar completion rate of clinical fellowship programs (93.97% vs 93.77%, p=0.933), attainment of other advanced degrees (10.34% vs 8.46%, p=0.485), and years since completion of training (17.49-years vs 16.28-years, p=0.284). Surgeons completing academic research training had a significantly higher h-index (18.46 vs 10.88, p<0.001), higher publication number (67.98 vs 37.80, p<0.001), and more likely to be NIH funded (16.38% vs 3.15%, p<0.001). Surgeons completing academic training were more likely to be associate professors (34.48% vs 25.77%), professors (25.00% vs 22.82%), and endowed professors (10.34% vs 2.43%) (p<0.001). On regression analysis, formalized research training was independently associated with h-index and NIH funding (p<0.001 for both).

CONCLUSION

Formalized research training, either as a research fellowship or PhD, is associated with an increased h-index and likelihood of NIH funding, although this association was not found for academic rank after adjusted regression analysis.

Discovering Factors that Influence Physician Scientist Success in Academic Medical Centers

This study investigated factors influencing success of physician scientists in Academic Medical Centers. These organizations and individuals drive healthcare in the United States. Translation of scientific discovery to medical practice moves at an astoundingly slow and ineffective rate. We must understand what contributes to physician scientist success to speed up translation. Through a lens of dialectic process theory, a grounded theory approach identified emergent factors from lived experiences of 31 individuals, at various experience levels, with MD and PhD degrees. Role balance, autonomy, organizational support, teamwork, life-cycle mentorship, and relational capacity were relevant factors impacting success. Role balance was important for success. Teamwork, organizational support, and life-cycle mentorship helped individuals grow, achieve balance, and respect, but relational capacity emerged as a critical driver for realizing both individual and organizational success. One person cannot execute these complex roles on their own, but development of deep and meaningful relationships through teamwork, collaboration, and life-cycle mentorship are essential for life satisfaction and success.

Attributes of excellent clinician teachers and barriers to recognizing and rewarding clinician teachers' performances and achievements: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Over the last 31 years, there have been several institutional efforts to better recognize and reward clinician teachers. However, the perception of inadequate recognition and rewards by clinician teachers for their clinical teaching performance and achievements remains. The objective of this narrative review is two-fold: deepen understanding of the attributes of excellent clinician teachers considered for recognition and reward decisions and identify the barriers clinician teachers face in receiving recognition and rewards.

METHODS

We searched OVID Medline, Embase, Education Source and Web of Science to identify relevant papers published between 1990 and 2020. After screening for eligibility, we conducted a content analysis of the findings from 43 relevant papers to identify key trends and issues in the literature.

RESULTS

We found the majority of relevant papers from the US context, a paucity of relevant papers from the Canadian context, and a declining international focus on the attributes of excellent clinician teachers and barriers to the recognition and rewarding of clinician teachers since 2010. 'Provides feedback', 'excellent communication skills', 'good supervision', and 'organizational skills' were common cognitive attributes considered for recognition and rewards. 'Stimulates', 'passionate and enthusiastic', and 'creates supportive environment', were common non-cognitive attributes considered for recognition and rewards. The devaluation of teaching, unclear criteria, and unreliable metrics were the main barriers to the recognition and rewarding of clinician teachers.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of our narrative review highlight a need for local empirical research on recognition and reward issues to better inform local, context-specific reforms to policies and practices.

Effect of Medical Student Contributions on Academic Productivity: Analysis of Student Authorship Over Time

INTRODUCTION

Understanding the trend of student authorship is crucial in determining its correlation to scholarly impact for corresponding authors. Our objective is to investigate student authorship rates over time in articles published in JAMA Internal Medicine (IM), as well as to examine potential effects student authors have on scholarly impact scores of corresponding authors via H-index measures.

METHODS

Authorship data including student authors (SA), first student authors, and corresponding authors (CA) from prior JAMA IM publications between 2010 and 2018 were collected, with a total of 701 studies. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent sample t-tests were performed to assess for differences in the mean by publishing year and student authorship, respectively.

RESULTS

Of 4591 total authors, 683 (14.9%) were considered student authors. The percentage of student authorship increased from 46.3% to 58.0% between 2010 and 2018, respectively. No difference in average H-indices of CA between SA and non-SA groups (overall NSA H_i mean: 30.2, vs SA H_i mean: 32.1, p=0.371) was noted.

DISCUSSION

Student participation in research is not a disadvantage to scholarly impact for corresponding authors. Increased student authorship reflects a promising trend towards greater student participation in research within the field of medicine.

Is there a glass ceiling at national trauma meetings?

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the roles of women at national trauma meetings.

METHODS

Available scientific programs for the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (2013-19), Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (2010-19), and Western Trauma Association (2010-19) as well as the Scudder Oration at the American College of Surgeons (1963-2019), were reviewed for names of participants and categorized by gender.

RESULTS

Women made up 963 of 2746 (35.1%) of presenters, 252 of 1020 (24.7%) of discussants, 116 of 622 (18.6%) of moderators of scientific sessions, 189 of 707 (26.7%) of panelists, and 69 of 254 (27.2%) of panel moderators. Only 12 of 126 (9.5%) of named lectures or presidential addresses were given by women.

CONCLUSIONS

The low rate of female named speakers suggests that there remains a "glass ceiling" when it comes to upper-level participation in national trauma meetings.

Whether article types of a scholarly journal are different in cited metrics using cluster analysis of MeSH terms to display: A bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

Many authors are concerned which types of peer-review articles can be cited most in academics and who were the highest-cited authors in a scientific discipline. The prerequisites are determined by: (1) classifying article types; and (2) quantifying co-author contributions. We aimed to apply Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) with social network analysis (SNA) and an authorship-weighted scheme (AWS) to meet the prerequisites above and then demonstrate the applications for scholars.

METHODS

By searching the PubMed database (pubmed.com), we used the keyword "Medicine" [journal] and downloaded 5,636 articles published from 2012 to 2016. A total number of 9,758 were cited in Pubmed Central (PMC). Ten MeSH terms were separated to represent the journal types of clusters using SNA to compare the difference in bibliometric indices, that is, h, g, and x as well as author impact factor(AIF). The methods of Kendall coefficient of concordance (W) and one-way ANOVA were performed to verify the internal consistency of indices and the difference across MeSH clusters. Visual representations with dashboards were shown on Google Maps.

RESULTS

We found that Kendall W is 0.97 (χ = 26.22, df = 9, P < .001) congruent with internal consistency on metrics across MeSH clusters. Both article types of methods and therapeutic use show higher frequencies than other 8 counterparts. The author Klaus Lechner (Austria) earns the highest research achievement(the mean of core articles on g = Ag = 15.35, AIF = 21, x = 3.92, h = 1) with one paper (PMID: 22732949, 2012), which was cited 23 times in 2017 and the preceding 5 years.

CONCLUSION

Publishing article type with study methodology and design might lead to a higher IF. Both classifying article types and quantifying co-author contributions can be accommodated to other scientific disciplines. As such, which type of articles and who contributes most to a specific journal can be evaluated in the future.

Does Formal Research Training Lead to Academic Success in Plastic Surgery? A Comprehensive Analysis of U.S. Academic Plastic Surgeons

INTRODUCTION

It is currently unknown whether formal research training has an influence on academic advancement in plastic surgery. The purpose of this study was to determine whether formal research training was associated with higher research productivity, academic rank, and procurement of extramural National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in plastic surgery, comparing academic surgeons who completed said research training with those without.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of full-time academic plastic surgeons in the United States. The main predictor variable was formal research training, defined as completion of a postdoctoral research fellowship or attainment of a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). The primary outcome was scientific productivity measured by the Hirsh-index (h-index, the number of publications, h that have at least h citations each). The secondary outcomes were academic rank and NIH funding. Descriptive, bivariate, and multiple regression statistics were computed.

RESULTS

A total of 607 academic surgeons were identified from 94 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited plastic surgery training programs. In all, 179 (29.5%) surgeons completed formal research training. The mean h-index was 11.7 ± 9.9. And, 58 (9.6%) surgeons successfully procured NIH funding. The distribution of academic rank was the following: endowed professor (5.4%), professor (23.9%), associate professor (23.4%), assistant professor (46.0%), and instructor (1.3%). In a multiple regression analysis, completion of formal research training was significantly predictive of a higher h-index and successful procurement of NIH funding.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence demonstrates that formal research training is associated with higher scientific productivity and increased likelihood of future NIH funding.

How we developed the GIM clinician-educator mentoring and scholarship program to assist faculty with promotion and scholarly work

Clinician Educators' (CEs) focus on patient care and teaching, yet many academic institutions require dissemination of scholarly work for advancement. This can be difficult for CEs. Our division developed the Clinician-Educator Mentoring and Scholarship Program (CEMSP) in an effort to assist CEs with scholarship, national reputation, recognition, promotion and job satisfaction. The key components are salary-supported director and co-director who coordinate the program and serve as overall mentors and link CEs and senior faculty, and a full-time Senior Research Coordinator to assist with all aspects of scholarship, a close relationship with the General Internal Medicine (GIM) Methods Core provides advanced statistical support. Funding for the program comes from GIM divisional resources. Perceived value was evaluated by assessing the number of manuscripts published, survey of faculty regarding usage and opinion of CEMSP, and a review of faculty promotions. Although impossible to attribute the contributions of an individual component, a program specifically aimed at helping GIM CE faculty publish scholarly projects, increase participation in national organizations and focus on career progression can have a positive impact.

Mentoring in general surgery in Switzerland

BACKGROUND

Mentorship has been found as a key factor for a successful and satisfying career in academic medicine and surgery. The present study was conducted to describe the current situation of mentoring in the surgical community in Switzerland and to evaluate sex differences regarding the impact of mentoring on career success and professional satisfaction.

METHODS

The study was designed as an anonymous national survey to all members of the Swiss Surgical Society in 2011 (820 ordinary and 49 junior members). It was a 25-item questionnaire addressing mentor-mentee relationships and their impact on the professional front.

RESULTS

Of the 869 mailed surveys, 512 responses were received (response rate: 58.9%). Mentor-mentee relationships were reported by 344 respondents (68.1%) and structured mentoring programs were noted in 23 respondents (6.7%). Compared to individuals without mentors, male mentees exhibited significantly higher subjective career advancement (5.4±1.2 vs. 5.0±1.3; p=0.03) and career development (3.3±1.9 vs. 2.5±1.7; p<0.01) scores, but the differences for female mentees were not statistically significant (4.7±1.1 vs. 4.3±1.2, p=0.16; 2.5±1.6 vs. 1.9±1.4, p=0.26; respectively). The pursuit of an academic career was not influenced by the presence of a mentor-mentee relationship for female (p=0.14) or male participants (p=0.22).

CONCLUSIONS

Mentor-mentee relationships are important for the career advancement of male surgeons. The reason for the lack of an impact on the careers of female surgeons is difficult to ascertain. However, mentoring also provides lifelong learning and personal development. Thus, specific attention should be paid to the development of more structured mentoring programs for both sexes.

Factors influencing scholarly impact: does urology fellowship training affect research output?

PURPOSE

Residents seek postresidency fellowship training to increase competency with novel surgical techniques and augment their fund of knowledge. Research productivity is a vital component of advancement in academic urology. Our objectives were to use the h-index (an objective and readily available bibliometric that has been repeatedly shown to correlate with scholarly impact, funding procurement, and academic promotion in urology as well as other specialties) to determine whether any relationship exists between fellowship training and scholarly impact among academic urologists. Additional examination was performed to determine whether any differences in scholarly influence are present among practitioners in the major urologic subspecialties.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Overall, 851 faculty members from 101 academic urology departments were organized by academic rank and fellowship completed. Research productivity was calculated using the h-index, calculated from the Scopus database.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference in h-index found between fellowship-trained and nonfellowship-trained academic urologists. The highest h-indices were seen among urologic oncologists (18.1 ± 0.95) and nonfellowship-trained urologists (14.62 ± 0.80). Nearly 70% of department chairs included in this analysis were urologic oncologists or general urologists.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference in h-index existed between fellowship-trained and nonfellowship-trained urologists, although practitioners in the subspecialty cohorts with the highest research productivity (nonfellowship-trained and urologic oncologists) comprised 70% of department chairpersons. This relationship suggests that a strong research profile is highly valued during selection for academic promotion. Differences existed on further comparison by subspecialty. Fellowship training may represent another potential opportunity to introduce structured research experiences for trainees.

Documenting quality improvement and patient safety efforts: the quality portfolio. A statement from the academic hospitalist taskforce

Physicians increasingly investigate, work, and teach to improve the quality of care and safety of care delivery. The Society of General Internal Medicine Academic Hospitalist Task Force sought to develop a practical tool, the quality portfolio, to systematically document quality and safety achievements. The quality portfolio was vetted with internal and external stakeholders including national leaders in academic medicine. The portfolio was refined for implementation to include an outlined framework, detailed instructions for use and an example to guide users. The portfolio has eight categories including: (1) a faculty narrative, (2) leadership and administrative activities, (3) project activities, (4) education and curricula, (5) research and scholarship, (6) honors, awards, and recognition, (7) training and certification, and (8) an appendix. The authors offer this comprehensive, yet practical tool as a method to document quality and safety activities. It is relevant for physicians across disciplines and institutions and may be useful as a standalone document or as an adjunct to traditional promotion documents. As the Next Accreditation System is implemented, academic medical centers will require faculty who can teach and implement the systems-based practice requirements. The quality portfolio is a method to document quality improvement and safety activities.

Mentorship, productivity, and promotion among academic hospitalists

BACKGROUND

United States academic hospitals have rapidly adopted the hospitalist model of care. Academic hospitalists have taken on much of the clinical and teaching responsibilities at many institutions, yet little is known about their academic productivity and promotion.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to discover the attitudes and attributes of academic hospitalists regarding mentorship, productivity, and promotion.

DESIGN

We performed a web-based email survey of academic hospitalists consisting of 61 questions.

PARTICIPANTS

Four hundred and twenty academic hospitalists.

MAIN MEASURES

Demographic details, scholarly production, presence of mentorship and attitudes towards mentor, academic rank

KEY RESULTS

Two hundred and sixty-six (63%) of hospitalists responded. The majority were under 41 (80%) and had been working as hospitalists for <5 years (62%). Only 42% of academic hospitalists had a mentor. Forty-four percent of hospitalists had not presented a poster or abstract at national meeting; 51% had not been first author on a peer-reviewed publication. Factors positively associated with publication of a peer-reviewed first author paper included: 1) male gender, AOR = 2.38 (95% CI 1.30, 4.33), 2) >20% "protected" time, AOR = 1.92 (95% CI 1.00, 3.69), and 3) a better-than-average understanding of the criteria for promotion, AOR = 3.66 (95% CI 1.76, 7.62). A lack of mentorship was negatively associated with producing any peer-reviewed first author publications AOR = 0.43 (95% CI 0.23, 0.81); any non-peer reviewed publications AOR = 0.45 (95% CI 0.24, 0.83), and leading a teaching session at a national meeting AOR = 0.41 (95% CI 0.19, 0.88). Most hospitalists promoted to the level of associate professor had been first author on four to six peer-reviewed publications.

CONCLUSIONS

Most academic hospitalists had not presented a poster at a national meeting, authored an academic publication, or presented grand rounds at their institution. Many academic hospitalists lacked mentorship and this was associated with a failure to produce scholarly activity. Mentorship may improve academic productivity among hospitalists.

Innovations in faculty development: study of a research assistance unit designed to assist clinician-educators with research

OBJECTIVES

At a mid-sized community medical school, research was not traditionally strong. Faculty members cited lack of infrastructure support as a significant research barrier. In response, the regional dean developed and funded a research assistance unit (RAU) in 2006 to provide administrative and statistical support to junior faculty beginning their research programs. This study examined the efficacy of the RAU from 2006-2008.

METHODS

The authors reviewed RAU records for number and types of projects; time from initial contact to IRB approval; type and hours of assistance; number of abstracts and publications resulting from RAU-sponsored projects; number and rank of faculty, student, and resident researchers; and cost of RAU operations. A satisfaction survey was given to faculty members who completed projects.

RESULTS

The RAU provided assistance with 68 projects involving a total of 36 faculty members, 34 residents, and 21 medical students, resulting in 12 published abstracts and/or manuscripts. RAU administrative assistance averaged 7 hours per project. Statistical assistance was provided for 21 projects and averaged 13 hours. Participation in clinical research by faculty rose from 8% to 32%, by residents from 24% to 31%, and by medical students from 22% to 43%. Of surveyed faculty, 92% rated their experience with the RAU as satisfactory or very satisfactory. Cost averaged $128,000 yearly.

CONCLUSIONS

The creation of a staff support unit resulted in an increase in research by faculty, residents, and students.

Experience with a medical education research group at the Mayo Clinic

BACKGROUND

Clinician-educators are encouraged to engage in scholarly activity despite numerous barriers to conducting educational research. We found no reports of formal educational research groups among general internists.

AIM

To evaluate a Scholarship in Medical Education Group (SIMEG) for general internists.

METHODS

The setting is a Division of General Internal Medicine at a large academic medical center. In 2005 twenty-two faculty members formed SIMEG to collaborate on educational research and award protected days for scholarly education projects. Through monthly dialogue and literature review, standards for critiquing educational research were created.

RESULTS

A total of 63 protected days were awarded to successful applicants. SIMEG members' curriculum vitae were monitored over two years. From 2005 to 2006, SIMEG members' presentations (15 to 29; p=0.125), peer-reviewed publications (8 to 27; p=0.016) and collaborative projects (19 to 42; p=0.047) increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Our educational research group enjoyed improving scholarly productivity over two years. Keys to success were supportive leadership, a culture of collaboration, creating a useful framework for critiquing research, and involving medical learners as co-investigators. Since faculty members are pressured to teach and care for patients while maintaining scholarly productivity, groups like SIMEG should become increasingly valued.

Academic career in medicine: requirements and conditions for successful advancement in Switzerland

BACKGROUND

Within the framework of a prospective cohort study of Swiss medical school graduates a sample of young physicians aspiring to an academic career were surveyed on their career support and barriers experienced up to their sixth year of postgraduate training.

METHODS

Thirty-one junior academics took part in semi-structured telephone interviews in 2007. The interview guideline focused on career paths to date, career support and barriers experienced, and recommendations for junior and senior academics. The qualitatively assessed data were evaluated according to Mayring's content analysis. Furthermore, quantitatively gained data from the total cohort sample on person- and career-related characteristics were analyzed in regard to differences between the junior academics and cohort doctors who aspire to another career in medicine.

RESULTS

Junior academics differ in terms of instrumentality as a person-related factor, and in terms of intrinsic career motivation and mentoring as career-related factors from cohort doctors who follow other career paths in medicine; they also show higher scores in the Career-Success Scale. Four types of career path could be identified in junior academics: (1) focus on basic sciences, (2) strong focus on research (PhD programs) followed by clinical training, (3) one to two years in research followed by clinical training, (4) clinical training and research in parallel. The interview material revealed the following categories of career-supporting experience: making oneself out as a proactive junior physician, research resources provided by superior staff, and social network; statements concerning career barriers encompassed interference between clinical training and research activities, insufficient research coaching, and personality related barriers. Recommendations for junior academics focused on mentoring and professional networking, for senior academics on interest in human resource development and being role models.

CONCLUSION

The conditions for an academic career in medicine in Switzerland appear to be difficult especially for those physicians combining research with clinical work. For a successful academic career it seems crucial to start with research activities right after graduation, and take up clinical training later in the career. Furthermore, special mentoring programs for junior academics should be implemented at all medical schools to give trainees more goal-oriented guidance in their career.

Clinical excellence in academia: perspectives from masterful academic clinicians

OBJECTIVE

To better understand and characterize clinical excellence in academia by exploring the perspectives of clinically excellent faculty in the top American departments of medicine.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

Between March 1 and May 31, 2007, 2 investigators conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with 24 clinically excellent Department of Medicine physicians at 8 academic institutions. Interview transcripts were independently analyzed by 2 investigators and compared for agreement. Content analysis identified several major themes that relate to clinical excellence in academia.

RESULTS

Physicians hailed from a range of internal medicine specialties; 20 (83%) were associate professors or professors and 8 (33%) were women. The mean percentage of time physicians spent in clinical care was 48%. Eight domains emerged as the major features of clinical excellence in academia: reputation, communication and interpersonal skills, professionalism and humanism, diagnostic acumen, skillful negotiation of the health care system, knowledge, scholarly approach to clinical care, and passion for clinical medicine.

CONCLUSION

Understanding the core elements that contribute to clinical excellence in academia represents a pivotal step to defining clinical excellence in this setting. It is hoped that such work will lead to initiatives aimed at measuring and rewarding clinical excellence in our academic medical centers such that the most outstanding clinicians feel valued and decide to stay in academia to serve as role models for medical trainees.

Professional characteristics and job satisfaction among SGIM members: a comparison of part-time and full-time physician members

BACKGROUND

As more physicians work part-time (PT), the faculty, institutions, and organizations that represent them should understand the factors that motivate and satisfy these physicians.

OBJECTIVE

Compare factors associated with job satisfaction among PT and full-time (FT) academic physicians.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Members of the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM), a national, academic Internal Medicine organization.

RESULTS

Fifty percent (1,396 of 2,772) of SGIM members responded, 11% work PT. Compared to FT, PT physicians were more often female (85% vs 38%, p < .001), clinicians (Cs) or clinician-educators (CEs) (84% vs 56%, p < .001), and of a lower rank (77% vs 61%, p = .001). Job satisfaction was similar between PT and FT Cs and CEs. For PT Cs and CEs, record of publication (11% vs 21%, p = .04) and local and national recognition (24% vs 36%, p = .03) were less important to overall job satisfaction compared to FT Cs and CEs. In multivariate analysis, academic rank (odds ratio [OR] = 7.18, 95%CI = 1.40-36.50) was associated with higher satisfaction among PT Cs and CEs.

CONCLUSIONS

PT and FT C and CE SGIM members report similar satisfaction, but different factors contribute to satisfaction. Knowing what motivates and satisfies PT physicians may allow medical centers to retain faculty and create positions to help them to fulfill their potential.

Evidence-based appointment and promotion of academic faculty at the University of Chicago

The authors report how one academic medical center (AMC) and associated nonclinical departments implemented evidence-based academic criteria and an evidence-based academic vetting process, which may be models for other institutions. In 2004-2005, The University of Chicago Division of the Biological Sciences and Pritzker School of Medicine reconceptualized its appointment, promotion, and tenure criteria to recognize all forms of scholarship as equally legitimate bases for academic tenure. The revised criteria also accommodate differences in academic effort consistent with varying clinical demands. Implementation of these criteria, however, necessitated revised practices in providing objective evidence and analysis of their satisfaction. Three complementary mechanisms now yield excellent evidence and analysis. The first, electronic forms (e-forms) comprise highly specific response items with embedded instructions, advice, and rationale. The e-forms encourage candidates and departments to provide the evidence that subsequent review needs to evaluate appointment or promotion proposals. Unexpectedly, the e-forms have been coopted as effective mechanisms for faculty development. Second, a faculty dean of academic affairs, a regular faculty member, was appointed to provide robust academic authority and perspective to the process. Third, the promotion and tenure advisory committee was restricted to evaluating academic criteria, and from considerations of institutional value. This change interposed a "firewall" between academic and institutional review. These changes have attenuated dissatisfaction with the appointments and promotions process both within and outside the AMC.

Medical school faculty discontent: prevalence and predictors of intent to leave academic careers

BACKGROUND

Medical school faculty are less enthusiastic about their academic careers than ever before. In this study, we measured the prevalence and determinants of intent to leave academic medicine.

METHODS

A 75-question survey was administered to faculty at a School of Medicine. Questions addressed quality of life, faculty responsibilities, support for teaching, clinical work and scholarship, mentoring and participation in governance.

RESULTS

Of 1,408 eligible faculty members, 532 (38%) participated. Among respondents, 224 (40%; CI95: 0.35, 0.44) reported that their careers were not progressing satisfactorily; 236 (42%; CI95: 0.38, 0.46) were "seriously considering leaving academic medicine in the next five years." Members of clinical departments (OR = 1.71; CI95: 1.01, 2.91) were more likely to consider leaving; members of inter-disciplinary centers were less likely (OR = 0.68; CI95: 0.47, 0.98). The predictors of "serious intent to leave" included: Difficulties balancing work and family (OR = 3.52; CI95: 2.34, 5.30); inability to comment on performance of institutional leaders (OR = 3.08; CI95: 2.07, 4.72); absence of faculty development programs (OR = 3.03; CI95: 2.00, 4.60); lack of recognition of clinical work (OR = 2.73; CI95: 1.60, 4.68) and teaching (OR = 2.47; CI95: 1.59, 3.83) in promotion evaluations; absence of "academic community" (OR = 2.67; CI95: 1.86, 3.83); and failure of chairs to evaluate academic progress regularly (OR = 2.60; CI95: 1.80, 3.74).

CONCLUSION

Faculty are a medical school's key resource, but 42 percent are seriously considering leaving. Medical schools should refocus faculty retention efforts on professional development programs, regular performance feedback, balancing career and family, tangible recognition of teaching and clinical service and meaningful faculty participation in institutional governance.

A ten-month program in curriculum development for medical educators: 16 years of experience

BACKGROUND

Despite increased demand for new curricula in medical education, most academic medical centers have few faculty with training in curriculum development.

OBJECTIVE

To describe and evaluate a longitudinal mentored faculty development program in curriculum development.

DESIGN

A 10-month curriculum development program operating one half-day per week of each academic year from 1987 through 2003. The program was designed to provide participants with the knowledge, attitudes, skills, and experience to design, implement, evaluate, and disseminate curricula in medical education using a 6-step model.

PARTICIPANTS

One-hundred thirty-eight faculty and fellows from Johns Hopkins and other institutions and 63 matched nonparticipants.

MEASUREMENTS

Pre- and post-surveys from participants and nonparticipants assessed skills in curriculum development, implementation, and evaluation, as well as enjoyment in curriculum development and evaluation. Participants rated program quality, educational methods, and facilitation in a post-program survey.

RESULTS

Sixty-four curricula were produced addressing gaps in undergraduate, graduate, or postgraduate medical education. At least 54 curricula (84%) were implemented. Participant self-reported skills in curricular development, implementation, and evaluation improved from baseline (p < .0001), whereas no improvement occurred in the comparison group. In multivariable analyses, participants rated their skills and enjoyment at the end of the program significantly higher than nonparticipants (all p < .05). Eighty percent of participants felt that they would use the 6-step model again, and 80% would recommend the program highly to others.

CONCLUSIONS

This model for training in curriculum development has long-term sustainability and is associated with participant satisfaction, improvement in self-rated skills, and implementation of curricula on important topics.

Why invest in an educational fellowship program?

Expanding and refining the repertoire of medical school teaching faculty is required by the many current and changing demands of medical education. To meet this challenge academic medical institutions have begun to establish programs--including educational fellowship programs--to improve the teaching toolboxes of faculty and to empower them to assume leadership roles within both institutional and educational arenas. In this article, the authors (1) provide historical background on educational fellowship programs; (2) describe the prevalence and focus of these programs in North American medical schools, based on data from a recent (2005) survey; and (3) give a brief overview of the nine fellowship programs that are discussed fully in other articles in this issue of Academic Medicine. These articles describe very different types of educational fellowships that, nevertheless, share common features: a cohort of faculty members who are selected to participate in a longitudinal set of faculty development activities to improve participants' teaching skills and to build a cadre of educational leaders for the institution. Evaluation of educational fellowships remains a challenging issue, but the authors contend that one way to evaluate the programs' effectiveness is to look at the educational improvements that have been instigated by program graduates. The authors hope that the various program descriptions will help readers to improve their existing programs and/or to initiate new programs.

Shaping Your Career to Maximize Personal Satisfaction in the Practice of Oncology

The practice of oncology can be a source of both great satisfaction and great stress. Although many oncologists experience burnout, depression, and dissatisfaction with work, others experience tremendous career satisfaction and achieve a high overall quality of life. Identifying professional goals, optimizing career fit, identifying and managing stressors specific to practice type, and achieving the optimal personal work–life balance can increase the likelihood of individual oncologists' achieving personal and professional satisfaction. In this article, we will explore how oncologists can accomplish these tasks and will examine several pervasive professional myths that often distort perspective. The article concludes in a conversation with four oncologists regarding what they find most meaningful about their work, how they manage career-specific stressors, and how they achieve balance between their personal and professional lives.

A time to be promoted. The Prospective Study of Promotion in Academia (Prospective Study of Promotion in Academia)

OBJECTIVE

The study's objectives were to determine (1) the rate at which department of medicine faculty in the United States are promoted, (2) if clinician-educators (CEs) are promoted to Associate Professor at the same rate as clinician-investigators (CIs), and (3) the variables that predict promotion.

METHODS

The Prospective Study of Promotion in Academia was a part-retrospective, part-prospective (from 2000 to 2003) cohort study. Six-hundred and four Internal Medicine junior faculty across the United States who had been registered as new appointees with the Association of American Medical Colleges in 1995 were invited to participate. Twenty-one percent of these had already left their institution when the study began. One hundred and eighty-three Internal Medicine faculty from 87 institutions in 35 states enrolled. The main outcome measure was the time from appointment as Assistant Professor to promotion to Associate Professor.

RESULTS

Follow-up was complete for all 183 faculty. Among the faculty that achieved promotion, the estimated median time to promotion was 6.0 years (95% Conf. Int.=5.8 to 6.2). The unadjusted sixth-year promotion rate for CEs was 16%, while for CIs it was 26% (P=.002). Independent negative predictors of promotion included low amount of research time (Hazard Ratio [HR] =0.3, 95% Conf. Int.=0.2 to 0.5), having a manuscript review service (HR=0.4, 95% Conf. Int.=0.2 to 0.7), never meeting with Chairman/Chief about promotion (HR=0.4, 95% Conf. Int.=0.2 to 0.7), low job satisfaction (HR=0.5, 95% Conf. Int.=0.3 to 0.9), and working in the Northeast (HR=0.6, 95% Conf. Int.=0.4 to 1.1). Positive predictors included making between 130 dollars and 149,000 dollars per year (HR=1.9, 95% Conf. Int.=1.1 to 3.4), working more than 60 h/wk (HR=1.9, 95% Conf. Int.=1.1 to 3.0), having a career mentor available (HR=1.8, 95% Conf. Int.=1.1 to 2.9), and having access to a grant office (HR=1.6, 95% Conf. Int.=1.0 to 2.6).

CONCLUSION

CEs and CIs appear to be promoted at different rates. The characteristics that are independently associated with earlier promotion may be helpful for institutions and individual faculty that are committed to achieving promotion efficiently.

Publications and extramural activities of general internal medicine and medicine subspecialty clinician-educators: a multicenter study

PURPOSE

Generalist clinician-educators may have more difficulty than specialists satisfying common promotion criteria (peer-reviewed publication and extramural reputation). This study compared publication rates and participation in extramural activities among subspecialist and generalist clinician-educators, and sought to determine the views of clinician-educators on the use of publication and reputation in determining their promotion.

METHOD

A cross-sectional questionnaire was delivered to 526 clinician-educators identified by the chairs at ten randomly selected U.S. medical schools in 2002.

RESULTS

A total of 270 clinician-educators responded. Medicine subspecialist clinician-educators reported more peer-reviewed publications than did general internal medicine (GIM) faculty (mean 26.4 versus 10.2, p < .003). Independent predictors of having a greater number of peer-reviewed publications were subspecialty membership (p < .01), less time spent in clinic (p < .01), focus of scholarship (p = .01), academic rank (p < .01), higher quartile of National Institutes of Health funding received by respondent's department (p < .01), and years on faculty (p = .03). A greater proportion of GIM faculty reported spending most of their protected time on scholarly activities less amenable to publication (p = .05). A greater proportion of subspecialists felt peer-reviewed publication should be required for promotion (p < .01), but a minority of both groups felt this should necessarily entail original research.

CONCLUSION

Subspecialist clinician-educators generate significantly more peer-reviewed publications than do their GIM colleagues. clinician-educators hold diverse views on the role of publication and reputation in determining their promotion.

Motivating factors for academic physicians within departments of medicine

OBJECTIVE

To understand what motivates academic physicians at a time when physician dissatisfaction is prevalent.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Of a cohort of 480 physician faculty members (identified from the Association of American Medical Colleges faculty roster) hired at the assistant professor level, 183 were monitored prospectively for a characterization of their success in achieving promotion. In mid-2001, follow-up data were collected about the factors that physicians described as motivating in their work. We conducted this study to understand the differences in motivators between clinician-educators and cliniclan-investigators and between male and female physicians, as well as to validate a previously used instrument developed to assess motivation and occupational values.

RESULTS

Of 183 physicians monitored, 144 (79%) responded to an interim follow-up questionnaire. Factor analysis revealed that physicians' occupational motivators could be grouped statistically into 3 factors: self-expression, helping others, and extrinsic rewards. Compared with clinician-educators, clinician-investigators were more motivated in their current work by having the ability to express themselves (composite factor score, 4.30 vs 3.84; P<.001). Clinician-investigators also rated 4 of the 6 items within the factor of self-expression as being significantly stronger motivators for them than did the clinician-educators. Compared with male physicians, female physicians Indicated they were more motivated by helping others (composite factor score, 4.18 vs 3.89; P=.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Factors that motivate physicians appear to be different for clinician-investigators and clinician-educators as well as for male and female physicians. Understanding the inspiration for physicians may help medical leadership to better motivate and relate to their physician workforce.

Documentation systems for educators seeking academic promotion in U.S. medical schools

PURPOSE

To explore the state and use of teaching portfolios in promotion and tenure in U.S. medical schools.

METHOD

A two-phase qualitative study using a Web-based search procedure and telephone interviews was conducted. The first phase assessed the penetration of teaching portfolio-like systems in U.S. medical schools using a keyword search of medical school Web sites. The second phase examined the current use of teaching portfolios in 16 U.S. medical schools that reported their use in a survey in 1992. The individual designated as having primary responsibility for faculty appointments/promotions was contacted to participate in a 30-60 minute interview.

RESULTS

The Phase 1 search of U.S. medical schools' Web sites revealed that 76 medical schools have Web-based access to information on documenting educational activities for promotion. A total of 16 of 17 medical schools responded to Phase 2. All 16 continued to use a portfolio-like system in 2003. Two documentation categories, honors/awards and philosophy/personal statement regarding education, were included by six more of these schools than used these categories in 1992. Dissemination of work to colleagues is now a key inclusion at 15 of the Phase 2 schools. The most common type of evidence used to document education was learner and/or peer ratings with infrequent use of outcome measures and internal/external review.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of medical schools whose promotion packets include portfolio-like documentation associated with a faculty member's excellence in education has increased by more than 400% in just over ten years. Among early-responder schools the types of documentation categories have increased, but students' ratings of teaching remain the primary evidence used to document the quality or outcomes of the educational efforts reported.

Comparison of scholarly productivity of general and subspecialty clinician-educators in internal medicine

BACKGROUND

Peer-reviewed publications and extramural reputation are criteria used to evaluate clinician-educators for promotion. There is concern that these criteria may be disadvantageous to clinician-educators in generalist fields relative to their specialist counterparts.

PURPOSE

To determine whether medicine subspecialists had more peer-reviewed publications and academic activities outside their home institution than general internal medicine (GIM) faculty, and to explore possible explanations for observed differences.

METHOD

Cross-sectional survey of all clinician-educators in a department of medicine at a leading public U.S. medical school. The survey assessed clinical duties, publications, and professional activities.

RESULTS

Seventy-one percent (42/59) of clinician-educator faculty responded. GIM clinician-educators spent fewer months on inpatient services (p = 0.01), but more time in clinic (p = 0.05). Specialist clinician-educators had more peer-reviewed publications (p = 0.003), but total publications since entering a clinician-educator track was similar (p > 0.2). After multiple linear regression, only academic rank (p = 0.001) and subspecialty membership (p = 0.005) remained significant predictors of peer-reviewed publication. GIM faculty reported spending more scholarly time on "activities unlikely to result in publication" (p < 0.01). A greater proportion of specialists served on extramural committees (72% vs. 41%, p = 0.05) and lectured outside their home institution in the preceding year (92% vs. 59%, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-institution survey, specialist clinician-educators reported more peer-reviewed publications and greater participation in other reputation-enhancing activities than did GIM clinician-educators.