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

The Relationship of Mentorship to Career Outcomes in Academic Psychiatry and Psychology: a Needs Assessment

OBJECTIVE

Faculty development is designed to facilitate career advancement of junior faculty but there is limited empirical evidence on how to design an effective program.

METHODS

As a first step in the design of an effective program, a needs assessment was conducted. Participants were faculty members of an academic psychiatry department. Participants completed a quantitative and qualitative survey assessing their experience with mentors, academic self-efficacy, career burnout and satisfaction, academic productivity, and perceived barriers to scholarship.

RESULTS

Eighty percent (N = 104) of eligible faculty members completed the study survey (54% female; 81% White, 10% underrepresented in medicine). Less than half of the respondents (44%) reported having a current mentor. Number of mentors (r = .33; p < .01), mentorship meetings (r = .35; p < .01), and mentorship quality (r = .33; p < .01) were significantly correlated to a standardized measure of academic self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was significantly associated with academic productivity (r = .44; p < .001) and career satisfaction (r = .29; p < .05). The top barriers to scholarship productivity were time and lack of access to resources. Faculty members without a mentor endorsed more barriers to scholarship (p < .001) than those with a mentor. Themes that emerged from the qualitative data suggest that mentorship supports career advancement through coaching and professional development, invitations to collaborate and resource share, networking, and active teaching.

CONCLUSION

Based on the relationship of mentoring to career outcomes, a robust faculty development program needs a formal academic mentorship program to improve career satisfaction and academic productivity.

A Scoping Review of Health Care Faculty Mentorship Programs in Academia: Implications for Program Design, Implementation, and Outcome Evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Formal mentoring programs have direct benefits for academic health care institutions, but it is unclear whether program designs use recommended components and whether outcomes are being captured and evaluated appropriately. The goal of this scoping review is to address these questions.

METHODS

We completed a literature review using a comprehensive search in SCOPUS and PubMed (1998-2019), a direct solicitation for unpublished programs, and hand-searched key references, while targeting mentor programs in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada. After three rounds of screening, team members independently reviewed and extracted assigned articles for 40 design data items into a comprehensive database.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight distinct mentoring programs were represented in the data set. The team members clarified specific mentor roles to assist the analysis. The analysis identified mentoring program characteristics that were properly implemented, including identifying program goals, specifying the target learners, and performing a needs assessment. The analysis also identified areas for improvement, including consistent use of models/frameworks for program design, implementation of mentor preparation, consistent reporting of objective outcomes and career satisfaction outcomes, engagement of program evaluation methods, increasing frequency of reports as programs as they mature, addressing the needs of specific faculty groups (eg, women and minority faculty), and providing analyses of program cost-effectiveness in relation to resource allocation (return on investment).

CONCLUSION

The review found that several mentor program design, implementation, outcome, and evaluation components are poorly aligned with recommendations, and content for URM and women faculty members is underrepresented. The review should provide academic leadership information to improve these discrepancies.

Faculty Development and Infrastructure to Support Educational Scholarship: A Scoping Review on Author Development

PURPOSE

Medical educators are expected to produce educational scholarship, which can lead to career advancement and promotion. Institutions have developed author development programs, which vary in duration, instructional approach, and effectiveness. However, no summation of the evidence exists for academic medicine leaders to use as guidance for building similar programs. This scoping review characterizes faculty development programs that support educational scholarship and author development in academic medicine.

METHOD

The authors searched PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ProQuest (Healthcare Administration Database and Social Science Premium Collection) for articles published from inception to June 14, 2021. Articles that described formal instruction on scholarly writing for publishing were included. Data were analyzed by program participation, structure, content delivery, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 923 articles identified, 20 met inclusion criteria. The included studies covered 18 unique programs of which 1 was sponsored jointly by a university and professional society, 5 by professional societies, 5 by university or medical school organizations, and 7 by medical departments. Nine programs relied at least in part on volunteers. Instructional approaches included didactics (7 programs) and mentoring (5 programs) but mostly featured group-based work (11 programs). Expectations for participants ranged from participation to manuscript submission. The main funding sources were grants (8 programs) and internal funds (7 programs) from the sponsoring institution. Only 4 programs reported participation fees. The impact of these programs included scholarly work products, other measures of career advancement, and participant perceptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Author development programs require resource investment and a culture that values educational scholarship. Workshops, 1-on-1 mentoring, and peer writing groups are cornerstones of the experiential learning approach needed to build scholarship skills and can pay dividends in supporting the academic mission in medicine. These findings may benefit leaders in academic medicine who want to develop evidence-based programs in author development.

Beyond the CLAIM: A comprehensive needs assessment strategy for creating an Advanced Medical Education Research Training Program (ARMED-MedEd)

BACKGROUND

The health professions education (HPE) landscape has shifted substantively with increasing professionalization of research and scholarship. Clinician educators seeking to become competitive in this domain often pursue fellowships and master's degrees in HPE, but there are few resources for the continuing professional development (CPD) of those who seek to continue developing their scholarly practice within HPE. Acknowledging the multiple players in this landscape, the authors sought to design a new "beyond beginners" HPE research program using a novel needs assessment planning process.

METHODS

The authors developed and conducted a new three-phase, five-step process that sets forth a programmatic approach to conducting a needs assessment for a CPD course in HPE research. The five steps of the CLAIM method are: Competitive analysis, Literature review with thematic analysis, Ask stakeholders, Internal review by experts, and Mapping of a curriculum. These steps are organized into three phases (Discovery, Convergence, and Synthesis).

RESULTS

Over a 12-month period, the authors completed a comprehensive needs assessment. The CLAIM process revealed that longitudinal digital connection, diverse and in depth exposure to HPE research methods, skills around scholarly publishing, and leadership and management of research would be beneficial to our design.

CONCLUSIONS

The CLAIM method provided scaffolding to help the authors create a robust curriculum that adopts a scholarly approach for developing a HPE research course. This needs assessment methodology may be useful in other CPD contexts.

Maximizing Career Advancement During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recommendations for Postgraduate Training Programs

The ongoing novel Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created many threats as well as opportunities for the career development of physicians-in-training. Institutional responses to the demand for patient care reduced the time many residents have to pursue clinical electives, scholarship projects, and other experiences meant to clarify and advance their personal and professional goals. Moreover, many academic medical centers experienced profound fiscal losses that require thoughtful revisions to budgets and curricula. In this article, the authors recommend strategies for residency programs to mitigate these losses and capitalize on growth in virtual education, scholarship opportunities, and relationships arising from the pandemic. Drawing from career development guidelines from the National Career Development Association and existing literature about factors associated with positive career outcomes, the authors suggest leadership roles, curricula, and events that training programs can quickly and inexpensively implement to help residents grow as professionals, achieve personal training goals, produce scholarship, and attain future employment. To help trainees manage their careers, the authors recommend structured mentorship and education in career pathways and the preparation of job application materials. To foster attainment of specific knowledge and cultivate lifelong learning, the authors recommend leveraging existing resources to provide time, funding, academic coaching, and skills training for scholarship projects. To promote development of effective work relationships and community, the authors recommend appointment of a faculty champion for career advancement, scholarship showcases, attendance at virtual journal clubs, and networking through social media outlets. These recommendations for supporting career advancement may apply to early career faculty development as well as undergraduate and postgraduate medical education beyond the pandemic era. Outcomes studies will be needed to evaluate the impact of these recommendations.

Scholarly Requirements and Support for Nursing Faculty Development and Career Advancement: A Nationwide Delphi Study

AIM

The aim of the study was to better understand the scholarship requirements and support for nursing faculty as they work to advance their scholarship and careers.

BACKGROUND

Nursing faculty are often required to participate in teaching, service, and scholarship. New faculty often struggle with the scholarship component.

METHOD

A nationwide Delphi study was conducted, surveying deans and/or associate deans for research at master's and doctoral degree-granting institutions.

RESULTS

Scholarly requirements provided for faculty to enable development of scholarship were well defined: having a dedicated leader; funding support; a culture of scholarship; publications, presentations, and grant writing expectations; formal programs; mentors; and support.

CONCLUSION

This study provided a beginning understanding of important aspects of faculty support for scholarship and career development. More information is needed to determine if the support structures and activities described reach faculty and enhance career development.

The lived experience of nursing faculty developing as scholarly writers

BACKGROUND

Nursing faculty are expected to disseminate scholarly work through publications, yet little is known about how faculty develop as scholarly writers.

PURPOSE

This manuscript discusses a hermeneutic phenomenological research study that uncovered the experience of nursing faculty developing as scholarly writers.

METHODS

Audiotaped personal interviews were conducted with 12 nursing faculty to understand the lived experience of nursing faculty developing as scholarly writers. A 5-step data analysis process consistent with phenomenology was used to identify common themes.

RESULTS

Findings revealed five themes: pulling everything together, steering me in the direction, using feedback to grow, squeezing it in, and staying on task.

CONCLUSION

This study offers educators insight into the experience of faculty developing as scholarly writers and leads to recommendations for approaches that may be useful in writing development.

Clinician-Educator Training and Its Impact on Career Success: a Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Clinician-educator (CE) careers in academic medicine are heterogeneous. Expectations for CEs have grown, along with a need to better prepare CEs for these roles.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether advanced education training is associated with productivity and success.

DESIGN

We used a sequential mixed methods approach, collecting quantitative survey data and qualitative focus groups data. We developed a three-tiered categorization of advanced training to reflect intensity by program type.

PARTICIPANTS

We surveyed CEs in the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) and conducted two focus groups at an SGIM annual meeting.

MAIN MEASURES

Primary outcomes were academic productivity (manuscripts, presentations, etc.) and leadership role attainment. Secondary analysis examined the interactive effect of gender and training intensity on these outcomes.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 198 completed the survey (response rate 53%). Compared with medium- or low-intensity training, high-intensity training was associated with a greater likelihood of publishing ≥ 3 first- or senior-author manuscripts (adjusted OR 2.6; CI 0.8-8.6; p = 0.002), teaching ≥ 3 lectures/workshops at the regional/national/international level (adjusted OR 5.7; CI 1.5-21.3; p = 0.001), and having ≥ 3 regional/national committee memberships (adjusted OR 3.4; CI 1.0-11.7; p = 0.04). Among participants in the "no training" and "high-intensity training" categories, men were more likely to have ≥ 3 publications (OR 4.87 and 3.17, respectively), while women in the high intensity category had a likelihood similar to men with no training (OR 4.81 vs. OR 4.87). Participants felt the value of advanced training exists not only in content but also in networking opportunities that programs provide.

CONCLUSIONS

While opinions were divided as to whether advanced training is necessary to position oneself for education roles, it is associated with greater academic productivity and reduced gender disparity in the publication domain. Institutions should consider providing opportunities for CEs to pursue advanced education training.

Scholarship in Teaching: An Approach to Enhancing the Value and Academic Standing of Teaching

BACKGROUND

In our effort to increase the value and academic standing of teaching, we implemented an initiative focused on scholarship in teaching. Our program was narrowly focused, project-based, peer-reviewed, resource-neutral, and open to all faculty. Faculty members are invited annually to submit a description of their educational projects in keeping with Glassick's criteria. Our purpose was to assess the effects of this award program.

METHOD

We reviewed the distribution of applications over a 3-year period and determined the academic departments, academic rank of applicants, and focus of projects. A questionnaire assessed applicants' perceptions of the value of participation, its contribution to promotion and advancement, and its role in subsequent dissemination activities.

RESULTS

Slightly fewer than half (60 of 124, 48%) of the applications submitted during 2016 through 2018 were judged by peer review to meet Glassick's criteria for scholarship and received the award. Most applicants were junior faculty, and most applications were from the department of medicine though all departments who taught students in core clinical rotations were represented during the years studied. The projects that were awarded were more likely to be disseminated when compared with those who were not awarded.

LESSONS LEARNED

Our scholarship in teaching program seemingly advanced educational scholarship among teaching faculty and provided a way of recognizing projects that advanced educational initiatives. Further efforts are required to promote support from departmental leadership, to enhance faculty participation, and to encourage success through mentoring and assistance in project preparation.

Measuring organizational mentoring climate: Importance and availability scales

INTRODUCTION

Although organizational climate may affect faculty's mentoring behaviors, there has not been any way to measure that climate. The purpose of this study was to test the reliability and validity of two novel scales to measure organizational mentoring climate importance and availability at two public research universities.

METHODS

We developed 36 content-valid mentoring climate items in four dimensions: Structure, Programs/Activities, Policies/Guidelines, and Values. In total, 355 faculty completed an anonymous, structured, online survey asking about the importance (very important to very unimportant) and availability (no, don't know, yes) of each of the items. We conducted reliability analyses and construct validity testing using exploratory common factor analysis, principal axis factoring, and oblique rotation.

RESULTS

The majority of the predominantly female, White non-Hispanic, senior, tenure-track faculty were not currently mentoring another faculty or being mentored. Analyses demonstrated a 15-item solution for both the Organizational Mentoring Climate Importance (OMCI) and the Availability (OMCA) Scales, with three factors each: Organizational Expectations, Mentor-Mentee Relationships, and Resources. Standardized Cronbach alphas ranged from 0.74 to 0.90 for the subscales, and 0.94 (OMCI) and 0.87 (OMCA) for the full scales. Faculty rated all items as somewhat to very important; however, perceived availability was very low ranging from mentor training programs (40%) to guidelines for evaluating mentoring success or managing conflict (2.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The scales will allow studying of how organizational climate may affect mentoring behavior and whether climate can be changed to improve faculty mentoring outcomes. We provide recommendations for furthering the science of organizational mentoring climate and culture.

Faculty development: From rubies to oak

Introduction: Faculty development has played a significant role in health professions education over the last 40 years. The goal of this perspective is to present a portrait of faculty development in Medical Teacher since its inception and to highlight emerging trends moving forward.Method: All issues of Medical Teacher were reviewed, using the search terms faculty development, staff development, professional development, or in-service training for faculty. The search yielded 286 results of which 145 focused specifically on faculty development initiatives, reviews, or frameworks.Findings: This review demonstrated a significant growth in publications related to faculty development in Medical Teacher over the last 40 years, with a primary focus on teaching improvement and traditional approaches to faculty development, including workshops, short courses and other structured, group activities. The international nature of faculty development was also highlighted.Recommendations: Moving forward, it is suggested that we: broaden the scope of faculty development from teaching to academic development; expand our approaches to faculty development, to include peer coaching, workplace learning and communities of practice; utilize a competency-based framework to guide the development of faculty development curricula; support teachers' professional identities through faculty development; focus on organizational development and change; and rigorously promote research and scholarship in faculty development.

Boyer and Beyond: An Interview Study of Health Professions Education Scholarship Units in the United States and a Synthetic Framework for Scholarship at the Unit Level

PURPOSE

Health professions education scholarship units (HPESUs) in the United States are large in number and diverse in purpose, activities, and contributions. Although each of these units shares a commitment to scholarship, there is no synthetic framework to accurately represent and evaluate their activities and contributions. This study aimed to provide such a framework.

METHOD

The authors examined data collected from 11 U.S. HPESU directors. Interviews occurred between April 2015 and February 2016. The research team used a combination of deductive and inductive qualitative techniques to analyze the interview transcripts. The deductive portion drew on Boyer's four-part framework of scholarship; the inductive portion produced a new conceptualization of scholarship at the HPESU level.

RESULTS

The scholarly activities of HPESUs generally align with Boyer's four types of scholarship-discovery, integration, application, and teaching. However, this categorization fails to capture the interconnectedness and variety of purposes served by these activities. Both are important when considering how best to represent the scholarly contributions made by HPESUs. From their analysis of interviews, the authors developed a three-part framework characterizing HPESU scholarly activities: supporting a scholarly approach to education, supporting educational scholarship within the institution, and supporting HPESU members' scholarship.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors contend that the three-part, unit-level framework for scholarship constructed in this study brings clarity and understanding to the purpose, activities, and contributions made by HPESUs in the United States. The proposed framework may allow unit directors to better justify and advocate for the resources needed to further promote the work of HPESUs.

Faculty Support for a Culture of Scholarship of Discovery: A Literature Review

BACKGROUND

A review of the literature was completed answering the question: "What is known about the barriers to, and support of, the scholarship of discovery that faculty members in nursing and related health sciences (i.e., medical, dental, and pharmacy) whose time is used in both the academic setting and clinical setting encounter as they develop programs of research, engage in grant writing, and pursue scientific publication?"

METHODS

Using a systematic approach, a total of 29 articles were included in this review.

RESULTS

Four major themes were identified: (1) Organizational expectations (2) administrative support (3) mentorship and (4) barriers to scholarship in nursing and related health sciences faculty. Organizational expectations and administrative support were critical in developing and maintaining a culture of scholarship, various mentorship models improved faculty scholarship skills and productivity, while multiple barriers were found to inhibit faculty development and scholarly productivity.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of organizational, administrative, and faculty activities and interventions can promote a culture of scholarship. Further research is needed to determine which interventions are most helpful in developing health science faculty scholarship.

CHEST: Home of the Clinician-Educator

Many hands can build a house; it takes trust to make that house a home. Trust has two main components: credibility (worthiness based on preparation and past performance) and empathy (the ability to understand and share another person's values). CHEST has maintained its credibility and empathy as the global leader in clinical pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medical education. It follows that the leader in chest clinical education would also be the home of the clinician-educator. You are that educator.

Faculty Mentoring Practices in Academic Emergency Medicine

BACKGROUND

Mentoring is considered a fundamental component of career success and satisfaction in academic medicine. However, there is no national standard for faculty mentoring in academic emergency medicine (EM) and a paucity of literature on the subject.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to conduct a descriptive study of faculty mentoring programs and practices in academic departments of EM.

METHODS

An electronic survey instrument was sent to 135 department chairs of EM in the United States. The survey queried faculty demographics, mentoring practices, structure, training, expectations, and outcome measures. Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare metrics of mentoring effectiveness (i.e., number of publications and National Institutes of Health [NIH] funding) across mentoring variables of interest.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine of 135 departments completed the survey, with a heterogeneous mix of faculty classifications. While only 43.6% of departments had formal mentoring programs, many augmented faculty mentoring with project or skills-based mentoring (66.7%), peer mentoring (53.8%), and mentoring committees (18%). Although the majority of departments expected faculty to participate in mentoring relationships, only half offered some form of mentoring training. The mean number of faculty publications per department per year was 52.8, and 11 departments fell within the top 35 NIH-funded EM departments. There was an association between higher levels of perceived mentoring success and both higher NIH funding (p = 0.022) and higher departmental publications rates (p = 0.022). In addition, higher NIH funding was associated with mentoring relationships that were assigned (80%), self-identified (20%), or mixed (22%; p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings help to characterize the variability of faculty mentoring in EM, identify opportunities for improvement, and underscore the need to learn from other successful mentoring programs. This study can serve as a basis to share mentoring practices and stimulate conversation around strategies to improve faculty mentoring in EM.

Grant Success for Early-Career Faculty in Patient-Oriented Research: Difference-in-Differences Evaluation of an Interdisciplinary Mentored Research Training Program

PURPOSE

Since 2004, the Clinical Faculty Scholars Program (CFSP) at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus has provided intensive interdisciplinary mentoring and structured training for early-career clinical faculty from multiple disciplines conducting patient-oriented clinical and outcomes research. This study evaluated the two-year program's effects by comparing grant outcomes for CFSP participants and a matched comparison cohort of other junior faculty.

METHOD

Using 2000-2011 institutional grant and employment data, a cohort of 25 scholars was matched to a cohort of 125 comparison faculty (using time in rank and pre-period grant dollars awarded). A quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design was used to identify the CFSP effect on grant outcomes. Grant outcomes were measured by counts and dollars of grant proposals and awards as principal investigator. Outcomes were compared within cohorts over time (pre- vs. post-period) and across cohorts.

RESULTS

From pre- to post-period, mean annual counts and dollars of grant awards increased significantly for both cohorts, but mean annual dollars increased significantly more for the CFSP than for the comparison cohort (delta $83,427 vs. $27,343, P < .01). Mean annual counts of grant proposals also increased significantly more for the CFSP than for the comparison cohort: 0.42 to 2.34 (delta 1.91) versus 0.77 to 1.07 (delta 0.30), P < .01.

CONCLUSIONS

Institutional investment in mentored research training for junior faculty provided significant grant award gains that began after one year of CFSP participation and persisted over time. The CFSP is a financially sustainable program with effects that are predictable, significant, and enduring.

Training the teachers. The clinician-educator track of the University of Washington Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Fellowship Program

The University of Washington was the first pulmonary and critical care medicine fellowship training program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education to create a dedicated clinician-educator fellowship track that has its own National Residency Matching Program number. This track was created in response to increasing demand for focused training in medical education in pulmonary and critical care. Through the Veterans Health Administration we obtained a stipend for a clinician-educator fellow to dedicate 12 months to training in medical education. This takes place predominantly in the second year of fellowship and is composed of several core activities: fellows complete the University of Washington's Teaching Scholars Program, a professional development program designed to train leaders in medical education; they teach in a variety of settings and receive feedback on their work from clinician-educator faculty and the learners; and they engage in scholarly activity, which may take the form of scholarship of teaching, integration, or investigation. Fellows are guided throughout this process by a primary mentor and a mentoring committee. Since funding became available in 2009, two of the three graduates to date have successfully secured clinician-educator faculty positions. Graduates uniformly believe that the clinician-educator track met their training goals better than the research-based track would have.

Effectiveness of iterative interventions to increase research productivity in one residency program

BACKGROUND

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires residency programs to expose residents to research opportunities.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of a series of iterative interventions to increase scholarly activity in one internal medicine residency.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of the effectiveness of a series of interventions to increase resident and faculty scholarly productivity over a 14-year period was performed using quality improvement methodology. Outcomes measured were accepted regional and national abstracts and PubMed indexed manuscripts of residents and faculty.

RESULTS

Initially, regional meeting abstracts increased and then were supplanted by national meeting abstracts. Sustained gains in manuscript productivity occurred in the eighth year of interventions, increasing from a baseline of 0.01 publications/FTE/year to 1.57 publications/FTE/year in the final year measured. Run chart analysis indicated special cause variation associated with the interventions performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Programs attempting to stimulate research production among faculty and residents can choose among many interventions cited in the literature. Since success of any group of interventions is likely additive and may take years to show benefit, measuring outcomes using quality improvement methodology may be an effective way to determine success.