Results of a gender-climate and work-environment survey at a midwestern academic health center.

AND CLIMATE determine how faculty's perceptions of medical school gender climate differ by gender, track, rank, and departmental affiliation. METHOD: In 1997, a 115-item questionnaire was sent to all University of Wisconsin Medical School faculty to assess their perceptions of mentoring, networking, professional environment, obstacles to a successful academic career, and reasons for considering leaving academic medicine. Using Fisher's exact two-tailed test, the authors assessed gender differences both overall and by track, rank, and departmental cluster. RESULTS: Of the 836 faculty on tenure, clinician-educator, and clinical tracks, 507 (61%) responded. Although equal proportions of men and women had mentors, 24% of the women (compared with 6% of men; p < .001) felt that informal networking excluded faculty based on gender. Women's and men's perceptions differed significantly (p < .001) on 12 of 16 professional environment items (p < .05 on two of these items) and on five of six items regarding obstacles to academic success. While similar percentages of women and men indicated having seriously considered leaving academic medicine, their reasons differed: women cited work-family conflicts (51%), while men cited uncompetitive salaries (59%). These gender differences generally persisted across tracks, ranks, and departmental clusters. The greatest gender differences occurred among clinician-educators, associate professors, and primary care faculty. CONCLUSIONS: Women faculty perceived that gender climate created specific, serious obstacles to their professional development. Many of those obstacles (e.g., inconvenient meeting times and lack of child care) are remediable. These data suggest that medical schools can improve the climate and retain and promote women by more inclusive networking, attention to meeting times and child care, and improved professional interactions between men and women faculty.     

Safety in the academic medical center: transforming challenges into ingredients for improvement.

Patient safety has emerged as an important challenge to the leadership of academic medical centers (i.e., teaching hospitals with significant research activity). This article describes the evidence regarding patient safety at academic medical centers (AMCs) and the special circumstances of AMCs that create challenges and opportunities for making improvements. While the research on the relative safety of patients in AMCs compared to other types of hospitals is sparse, it seems clear that AMCs in general do not stand out as models of patient safety. AMCs are unique as health care providers because of the multiple consequences of their three missions: patient care, research, and teaching. Aspects of these missions can serve to both enhance an AMC's ability to address safety issues and at the same time create unique and challenging barriers. For example, the research enterprise may distract managers' focus on safety issues but at the same time provide a wealth of highly trained talent for investigating and reducing safety problems. By addressing these challenges, AMCs have the opportunity, even the obligation, to be both the source of new knowledge on health care safety as well as the transmitter of new skills in safe patient care for the health care providers of the future.     

Scholarship in the medical faculty from the university perspective: retaining academic values.

Academic medicine and research universities have enjoyed a close relationship that has strengthened both, spawning an era of discovery and scholarship in medicine that has earned the U.S. academic medical enterprise a high level of public trust and a deserved leadership position in the world. However, changes in the financing of medical care and in the organization of health care delivery have dramatically affected the medical school-university partnership. The growing emphasis on delivery of clinical services and the concomitant decrease in time for tenured and clinician-educator faculty to teach and do scholarly work jeopardizes both the potential for continued discovery and the education of the next generation of medical scholars. The background of the medical school-university relationship and the factors leading to the development of clinician-educator faculty tracks are reviewed, and recent trends that impact faculty scholarship are discussed. Both tenure-track and clinician-educator medical faculty, as members of the broader university community, should expect from their university colleagues a continued demand for scholarship and educational activity that reflects the underlying philosophy of the parent university. As a corollary, the university, through its medical school, must provide these faculty the time and the financial support necessary to fulfill their academic mission. The size of the clinician-educator faculty should be determined by the academic needs of the medical school rather than by the service demands of its associated health care delivery system. To accomplish this, academic medical centers will have to develop cadres of associated or clinical faculty whose primary focus is on the practice of medicine.     

Health maintenance organizations and medical education: breaking the barriers

Academic medical centers (AMCs) are under pressure to increase ambulatory medical education, but their capacity for such teaching is limited. Health maintenance organizations (HMOs) are a large and growing institutional setting that could participate in clinical education. Until now, relatively few HMOs and AMCs have reached agreements about teaching, because traditional suspicions have blocked collaboration. Responding to a case prepared as the basis of discussion, about 450 academics and HMO medical directors explored the barriers to and incentives for cooperation between AMCs and HMOs in clinical education. The two groups identified different issues as barriers to collaboration, leaving considerable room to negotiate agreements. AMCs, especially, need to be prepared to offer meaningful academic and financial inducements to attract HMOs to participate in teaching.     

Valuing educational scholarship at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

Since the late 1980s faculty and staff at the Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW) have actively sought to align their school's academic culture and promotional process with its mission of educational excellence and innovation. As one of the top 50 medical schools receiving NIH funds, MCW has well-established mechanisms to evaluate and recognize the scholarship of discovery. Understanding, evaluating, and recognizing the value of individuals engaged in the scholarship of teaching, however, required changes in individuals' beliefs and in the MCW's promotion processes and organizational infrastructure. Building on the successful introduction of the MCW's Educator's PortfolioCopyright, a tool for documenting educational scholarship, a multifaceted change strategy was implemented to influence underlying beliefs and values about clinician-educators. Retrospectively, this strategy was consistent with John Kotter's eight-step change model, which the authors apply as an organizing framework for this case report of educational evolution at the MCW. Through creating a guiding coalition, developing vision and strategy, generating short-term wins, and anchoring new approaches in the MCW's culture, the MCW has made substantive progress in recognizing and rewarding educational scholarship. Changing academic cultures to value education is itself an educational process, requiring persistence and the ability to teach others about educational scholarship and its associated criteria.     

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.     

Rediscovering the medical school.

Medical schools, once devoted primarily to educating medical students, have evolved into complex academic medical centers (AMCs), some of which place a greater emphasis on research and the clinical business than on educating future physicians. This occurred primarily as the result of outside forces, specifically the available revenue streams that have fostered growth. Discipline-based departments have been at the center of the governance structure of medical schools, but many AMCs now have research institutes and centers to enhance research productivity, and faculty group practices to maximize clinical revenue. Although AMCs have been successful in making scientific discoveries, developing new technologies, and providing state-of-the-art clinical care, their successes have not always been favorable to the education mission. Furthermore, the roles of departments and their chairs have not always been carefully considered; a mismatch between organizational and governance structures is occurring. In this article several suggestions are offered to help medical schools rediscover their unique reason for existence and better distinguish core missions from core businesses. Mission-based management and mission-based budgeting provide the framework for maximum success of all the missions. Specific suggestions include (1) organizing a national task force to consider optimal organizational and governance structures of modern AMCs, (2) establishing a core teaching faculty, (3) creating a matrix letter of assignment that aligns salary rates with assigned activities, (4) linking education to the provision of health care to the underinsured, and (5) forming education centers to effectively centralize governance of the education mission.     

The impact of the lack of health insurance: how should academic medical centers and medical schools respond?

The lack of health insurance has significant deleterious effects on the health of individual patients and creates substantial financial pressure on health care institutions. Despite the historical role of academic medical centers (AMCs) and medical schools in caring for the uninsured, financial shortfalls have increased pressure on these institutions to restrict care of this population. Limiting care of the uninsured, however, conflicts with the ethical foundations of academic medicine and risks further harm to the health of this population. Instead of restricting care, the effects of uninsurance should be mitigated through the joint efforts of medical schools and AMCs by measuring clinical work using work Relative Value Units rather than collections; recognizing faculty who provide care for the uninsured in the promotions process; adjusting billing rates for clinical services according to patients' ability to pay; delivering one standard of care irrespective of insurance status; continuing to evaluate the impact of uninsurance and intervention strategies; providing leadership in measuring and improving the quality of care; ensuring that trainees and the public are familiar with the effects of a lack of health insurance; and assisting safety net providers by providing educational materials pertinent to their respective patient populations and more fully integrating these providers into the academic community.Although all physicians in the private and public sectors should share in the care of the uninsured, academic medicine must remain faithful to its historical role of providing care to the uninsured and should improve the health of the uninsured through a proactive strategy involving advocacy, clinical care, education, and research.     

Integration of student-health physicians into U.S. medical schools and their affiliated teaching hospitals.

PURPOSE: To determine whether physicians in the student health services (SHSs) at U.S. medical schools and their affiliated teaching hospitals, referred to here as academic medical centers (AMCs), have unique opportunities for integration into AMCs that do not exist for physician-faculty at SHSs on purely academic campuses. METHOD: A survey of SHS offices at the 124 U.S. medical schools was conducted in the spring of 1999. The questionnaire asked about the reporting relationships of the SHS within the AMC, whether the student-health physicians had academic appointments within the AMC, and whether these physicians participated in the AMC's clinical services, administration, research, or teaching activities. RESULTS: There were 116 (94%) responses (not all responses were complete and eight were excluded because their campuses offered no formal SHS). Approximately half of the SHSs (52/107, 49%) reported to their AMCs. Student-health physicians with career-track appointments were more likely to be found at SHSs reporting to AMCs (35/58, 60%) than at SHSs reporting solely to a division of student affairs (20/58, 34%). Having a career-track appointment increased the likelihood of the student-health physicians' attending on the wards (34/59, 58%), seeing private patients in an AMC's faculty practice (40/59, 68%), participating in administrative activities for an AMC (50/56, 89%), and participating in research activities (36/57, 63%). CONCLUSIONS: Student health services that reported to their AMCs were more likely to have faculty with career-track appointments, and these appointments were more likely to result in the integration of student-health physicians into their AMC's clinical services, administration, and research activities. Career-track appointments, however, had no influence on whether teaching activities occurred within the SHS. Fully integrating student-health physicians into the AMC's activities enhances outcomes for both the SHS and its AMC.     

Academic medicine and the search for meaning and purpose.

The transformation of the health care industry into a marketplace governed by commercialism and free competition challenges the doctrine of medicine as a profession valuing service to the patient above financial reward. Many physicians have become disenchanted with their ability to serve as advocates for and provide care to their patients. Financial success, the measure of the marketplace, has become the dominant standard of measurement or "value" for most academic medical centers (AMCs). Many doctors report their work is less fulfilling. As a result, all three social missions-patient care, teaching, and research-are in jeopardy. The growth of modernism, preeminence of biomedical research, and dominance of a market-driven clinical enterprise will continue to pose challenges to the health care system in the United States. However, AMCs can provide the leadership and serve as the ambassadors through which the health care system can be renewed with a sense of direction and purpose. Renewal must begin with more open discourse about what we value in health care and what kind of medical profession we want to have, to include addressing questions such as: What does it mean to be an academic physician? What gives my work meaning and purpose? This kind of dialogue could easily be built into the medical students' curricula and residency training programs, with the faculty taking the lead.     

Physician leadership: enhancing the career development of academic physician administrators and leaders.

As the health care environment grows more complex, there is greater opportunity for physician administrative and management leadership. Although physicians in general, and academic physicians in particular, view management as outside their purview, the increased importance of physician administrative leadership represents an opportunity for academic physicians interested in working at the interface of clinical medicine, health care, finance, and management. These physicians are called academic physician administrators and leaders (APALs). APALs are clinician-administrators whose academic contributions include both scholarly work related to their administrative duties and administrative leadership of academically important programs. However, existing academic career development infrastructure, such as academic promotions, is oriented toward traditional clinician-educator and clinician-researcher faculty. The APAL career path differs from traditional academic pathways because APALs require unique skills, different mentors, and a more expansive definition of academic productivity. This article describes how academic medical institutions could enhance the career development of academic physicians in administrative and leadership positions.     

How best to evaluate clinician-educators and teachers for promotion?

The challenge of how best to evaluate educational scholars (and specifically, clinician-educators) and teachers for promotion continues to confront academia. While the work of educational scholars and teachers often overlaps, the terms for justifying their promotion differ substantially. In each case, the author maintains that evaluation should be oriented to evidence of the impact of their work. Educational scholars can be assessed mainly by objective impact, whereas the evidence for the impact of teachers should include profound, subjective effects on individual learners. For example, for clinician-educators engaged in scholarly work, the impact of that work can be identified in terms of changes in educational methods, career commitments, and practices (all intermediate outcomes), and even health outcomes. For teachers, in addition to customary criteria such as critical thinking, depth of knowledge, communication ability, and personal engagement, learners can be asked about the deep influence of these teachers. The author states his case for these principles, and also presents an innovative tool, the "impact map," as a way of graphically portraying the track record of an individual clinician-educator. Such maps are more vivid than narrative testimonials in organizing and displaying evidence of impact over time. This tool, combined with the author's other suggestions to assist the promotion process for educators and teachers, is aimed at fostering a greater emphasis on outcomes in assessing both clinician-educators and teachers to achieve greater rigor and fairness.     

Developing and testing an instrument to measure the effectiveness of clinical teaching in an academic medical center.

PURPOSE: Instruments that rate teaching effectiveness provide both positive and negative feedback to clinician-educators, helping them improve their teaching. The authors developed the Clinical Teaching Effectiveness Instrument, which was theory-based and generic across their entire academic medical center, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. They tested it for reliability, validity, and usability. METHOD: In 1997, using an iterative qualitative development process involving key stakeholders, the authors developed an institution-wide instrument to routinely evaluate clinical faculty. The resulting instrument has 15 questions that use a five-point evaluation scale. The instrument, which was administered to medical students, residents, and fellows over a 20-month period, produced data that were rigorously tested for instrument characteristics, reliability, criterion-related and content validity, and usability. RESULTS: This instrument, implemented in all departments across the institution, produced data on a total of 711 clinician-educators. Correlation coefficients among the items were high (.57 to .77). The scores were reliable (g coefficient of 0.935), and the instrument had both content and criterion-related validity. CONCLUSIONS: The Cleveland Clinic's Clinical Teaching Effectiveness Instrument is reliable and valid, as well as usable. It can be used as an evaluation tool for a wide variety of clinical teaching settings.     

Responding to disasters: academic medical centers' responsibilities and opportunities.

Disaster preparedness and disaster response should be a capability of all academic health centers. The authors explore the potential role and impact of academic medical centers (AMC)s in disaster response. The National Disaster Medical System and the evolution of disaster medical assistance teams (DMAT) are described, and the experience at one AMC with DMAT is reviewed. The recent deployment of a DMAT sponsored by an AMC to the Hurricane Katrina disaster is described, and the experience is used to illustrate the opportunities and challenges of future disaster medical training, research, and practice at AMCs. AMCs are encouraged to identify an appropriate academic unit to house and nurture disaster-preparedness activities, participate in education programs for health professionals and the public, and perform research on disaster epidemiology and response. Networks of AMCs offer the potential of acting as a critical resource for those AMCs stricken by a disaster and for communities needing the infusion of highly trained and motivated health care providers. The Association of American Medical Colleges can play a critical role in assisting and coordinating AMC networks through its relationship with all AMCs and the federal government and by increasing the awareness of medical educators and researchers about this important, emerging area of medical knowledge.     

The changing faces of promotion and tenure at U.S. medical schools

Faced with many potentially divisive questions related to tenure and promotion, leaders at medical schools have lacked an overview of examples of how other medical schools are adapting their faculty policies to reflect changing realities. This article reports results of a survey of U.S. medical school deans and of interviews with faculty affairs administrators regarding areas of change in faculty appointment, promotion, and tenure policies. Examples of adaptations are reported under the following headings: use of tenure; financial guarantees of tenure; criteria for award of tenure; probationary period; post-tenure review; advising faculty; clinician-educator tracks; and recruting women and minority faculty. Of these, the adaptation entailing the most activity and about which the most information was obtained concerns establishing a clinician-educator track. Numerous examples are provided of schools' evolutions of policies with regard to modifying titles of clinical-educators, defining promotion criteria, monitoring transfer between tracks, and defining contract periods, benefits, and privileges. The primary challenge for medical school administrators is to build sufficient flexibility into their promotion policies to show that the institution values the many different types of faculty needed, and at the same time to provide adequate security to essential faculty.     

Creative professional activity: an additional platform for promotion of faculty.

Academic promotion has traditionally been based on research and teaching, but faculty members' contributions to the profession may not be fully captured in those dimensions. Faculty members may influence the practice of medicine and improve the care of patients yet not obtain traditional measures of achievement through publications, grants, or teaching awards. With this problem in mind, at the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, the promotions committee developed and implemented a promotions criterion called Creative Professional Activity (CPA) to recognize and reward a variety of types of academic endeavors that have a demonstrable impact on medical practice and care. CPA comprises three activities: professional innovation, exemplary practice, and contributions to the development of the discipline.In this article, the authors define CPA, provide illustrative case examples, describe how faculty members document CPA, and report the use of this promotions criterion in the Department of Medicine over the last decade. The challenges of implementing CPA as a promotion criterion are described. CPA is consistent with the Department of Medicine's goal of achieving excellence through original research, education, or creative work that advances the care of patients.     

Mandatory postgraduate medical training in Japan--present state of Nihon University as a private medical school

This is a time of considerable uncertainty about the future of the postgraduate medical education policy of the Japanese government. Strong and visionary academic leadership of laboratory physicians in private medical schools is needed. The medical schools must not only adapt to a changing health care system, but also maintain excellence in education, patient care, and clinical research. In Japan, tradition has it that the comparatively few faculty members at national medical schools are mostly promoted only on the basis of research in experimental medicine, therefore, young medical graduates are increasingly drawn to bench work or molecular medicine, not to clinical practice. Single-minded specialization tends to produce single track minds, which may lack balanced judgment in approaching the appropriateness of both investigation and management. For continuity of care and containment of costs, a year or two of general professional training after graduation preceded by a broad medical education is an invaluable investment. All medical graduates, whatever their intended or unintended final destination (even if not clinical), should spend more than six months in medicine and four or five months in surgery, at least half of each to be spent in the general disciplines, including responsibilities for acute emergency admissions. As certified laboratory physicians we must attempt to attract graduates into laboratory medicine by developing imaginative training programs including common laboratory procedures such as Gram's stain, Wright-Giemsa stain and point of care testing at the patient's bedside or in ambulatory clinics, not only in central clinical laboratories.     

Transform residency training in chronic illness care -- now.

Identification of the drivers of change that hasten improvement of chronic illness care in resident practices serves as an effective strategy for transformative change. The Academic Chronic Care Collaborative (ACCC) is an ongoing network of 48 teams from 22 teaching hospitals and systems that have committed to implementation of the evidence-based Chronic Care Model in their residency practices. The teams track the results of their efforts by monthly reports of both clinical and educational outcomes. The authors' experience with these self-selected teams shows that the two most effective drivers of change have been organization-wide leadership -- from the CEO to the clinical manager -- and the academic culture, e.g., competitiveness, the aspiration for excellence, focus on the research mission, comfort with data, and commitment to the education mission. These ACCC teams and their sponsoring health systems have successfully harnessed these drivers for the implementation of evidence-based chronic illness care in resident practices.     

Faculty development in teaching skills: an intensive longitudinal model.

Although reflection contributes to the personal growth of clinician-educators and is important for effective teaching, few teaching skills programs report its use. The Johns Hopkins Faculty Development Program in Teaching Skills, first implemented in 1987 as a theoretically grounded, longitudinal model for faculty development of clinician-educators, comprises a set of conditions intended to promote reflective learning. This paper describes the program and reports evaluation results for 98 participants and a comparison group of 112 nonparticipants between 1988 and 1996. Participants met with facilitators weekly for nine months for 3.5 hours, in stable groups of four to six individuals. Educational methods used across seven content areas emphasized relationships and collaboration, and included information provision, experiential learning with reflection, and personal awareness sessions. A pre-post evaluation design with comparison group measured changes in self-assessed teaching and professional skills, teaching enjoyment, and learning effectiveness. A post-only evaluation design appraised overall program quality, educational methods, facilitation, learning environment, and perceived impact of participation. Program participants had significantly greater pre-post-change scores than nonparticipants for all 14 outcomes (p <.05). Multiple regression modeling indicated that program participation was associated with pre-post improvement in all outcomes except administration skills, controlling for all participant and nonparticipant baseline characteristics (p <.05). All measured programmatic characteristics were highly rated by participants. Experiential methods with reflection were rated significantly higher than information-provision and personal awareness sessions (p <.001). Evaluation results demonstrate a positive impact of this alternative approach to faculty development on clinician-educator perceptions of their attitudes and behaviors towards learners and colleagues.