The Junior Faculty Laboratory: an innovative model of peer mentoring

Mentoring in academic medicine has been shown to contribute to the success of junior faculty, resulting in increased productivity, career satisfaction, and opportunities for networking. Although traditional dyadic mentoring, involving one senior faculty member and one junior protégé, is the dominant model for mentoring in the academic environment, there is increasing recognition that the sharing of knowledge, skills, and experiences among peers may also contribute to the career development of junior faculty. The authors describe the structure, activities, and outcomes of the Junior Faculty Laboratory (JFL), a self-organized, flexible, and dynamic peer-mentoring model within the Duke University Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development. As an innovative mentoring model, JFL is entirely peer driven, and its activities are determined by the real-time needs of members. In contrast to some other peer-mentoring models, JFL lacks senior faculty input or a structured curriculum, members are multidisciplinary, meeting times are project driven rather than preset, and participation in collaborative projects is optional based on the interests and needs of group members. Additionally, JFL was not formed as a substitute for, but as a complement to, the dyadic mentoring relationships enjoyed by its members. The model, now in its fifth year, has demonstrated success and sustainability. The authors present the JFL as an innovative, mentoring model that can be reproduced by other junior faculty seeking to foster collegial relationships with peers while simultaneously enhancing their career development.     

The POD: a new model for mentoring underrepresented minority faculty.

Mentoring, long recognized as a catalyst for successful careers, is particularly important to the career development of underrepresented minority (URM) faculty. In academic medicine, mentor-protégé relationships are seriously threatened by increased clinical, research, and administrative demands and an emphasis on scholarship over citizenship. New mentoring models are needed, and they should be adaptable to a medical school's unique structure and mission. The Peer-Onsite-Distance (POD) model, developed in 2002 by the authors and introduced at the College of Medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, is a targeted, multilevel mentoring prototype that is built on a solid research foundation and tailored to the unique needs of URM medical school faculty. The mentee's individual needs for guidance related to career goals, resources, and the content and interaction skills that are known to be critical to successful academic careers are targeted for development. The multilevel approach provides a unique network of peer and faculty mentors who provide site-specific career guidance. Also in the network are leaders in their fields who can provide access to accurate information, cautions, predictions, and announcements of future resources or potential restrictions in academic medicine. Mentor commitments are clearly defined and time contributions are maximized. The POD model aims to promote retention and advance the careers of URM faculty by wrapping them in a protective cushion of interpersonal and intrapersonal support. The flexibility of the design allows for adaptation to any institution's unique structure and mission.     

Evaluation of an Enhanced Peer Mentoring Program on Scholarly Productivity and Promotion in Academic Emergency Medicine: A Five-Year Review

ObjectiveTo design, implement, and evaluate the effectiveness of an enhanced peer mentoring program (EPMP) for faculty in emergency medicine aimed at overcoming traditional mentoring challenges.MethodsFull time faculty (Clinical Instructor, Assistant, and Associate levels) were placed into peer groups (based upon their primary academic roles) led by senior faculty advisors at the Professor level. Peer groups met at least quarterly from 2012 to 2017. In lieu of a structured curriculum, session topics were informed by individual faculty surveys and peer group consensus. Areas of focus included work-life balance, prioritizing academic commitments, identification of mentors (both within and external to the department and university), networking opportunities, promotions goals, and career satisfaction.ResultsEffectiveness of the EPMP was evaluated by academic productivity and advancement over a 5- year period. A total of 22 faculty members participated in the program. There was an increase in promotions to the next academic level, from 3 promotions in the five years before the program to 7 promotions in the five years of the program. Total grant funding increased 3-fold from $500,000 to $1,706,479 from the first year to the last year of the evaluation period.ConclusionsThis enhanced peer mentoring program was effective in mitigating many of the traditional mentoring challenges faced by faculty in academia and was successful in improving both academic productivity and advancement.     

Improving the retention of underrepresented minority faculty in academic medicine

BACKGROUND: Although several studies have outlined the need for and benefits of diversity in academia, the number of underrepresented minority (URM) faculty in academic health centers remains low, and minority faculty are primarily concentrated at the rank of assistant professor. In order to increase the diversity of the faculty of the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) School of Medicine, the UCSD National Center for Leadership in Academic Medicine, in collaboration with the UCSD Hispanic Center of Excellence, implemented a junior faculty development program designed in part to overcome the differential disadvantage of minority faculty and to increase the academic success rate of all faculty. METHODS: Junior faculty received counseling in career and research objectives; assistance with academic file preparation, introduction to the institutional culture; workshops on pedagogy and grant writing; and instrumental, proactive mentoring by senior faculty. RESULTS: After implementation of the program, the retention rate of URM junior faculty in the school of medicine increased from 58% to 80% and retention in academic medicine increased from 75% to 90%. CONCLUSION: A junior faculty development program that integrates professional skill development and focused academic career advising with instrumental mentoring is associated with an increase in the retention of URM faculty in a school of medicine.     

An initiative in mentoring to promote residents' and faculty members' careers.

Internal medicine trainees and faculty recognize the value of effective mentoring to help meet the personal and professional needs of residents. However, the paradigm of the mentor-trainee relationship is seriously threatened by increased clinical, research, and administrative demands on both faculty and housestaff. Moreover, the current criteria for promotion in most teaching hospitals emphasize scholarship, rather than citizenship, so activities such as mentoring devolve to a lower priority. In 2000, the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women's/Faulkner Hospital initiated a program to improve the effectiveness of housestaff mentoring and recognize faculty contributions to resident career development. The authors report the feedback received from a survey of the 2002-03 medical housestaff (74% response rate) and describe their experiences with the initiation of this program. Over 90% of the housestaff respondents thought it important that the Department assigns an individual faculty mentor. In practice, time-consuming professional responsibilities made meetings difficult, but most pairs supplemented their interactions with e-mail. Discussions primarily focused on career advice and support. Housestaff thought mentors were helpful and available when needed. The department has established new metrics for recognizing faculty mentoring and now publicly rewards mentoring excellence. Of note, unassigned mentoring has increased since the initiation of this program. The authors conclude that the formal mentoring program has ensured that all trainees are provided with a mentor, which has facilitated faculty-housestaff interactions and increased recognition of faculty contributions to mentoring.     

Mentoring program for minority faculty at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

Research indicates that having a faculty mentor and being part of an active network of peers are critical ingredients of successful academic medicine careers. Minority physicians, however, often do not have mentors, and the problem is greatest for minority groups underrepresented in medicine. The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in 1994-1996 undertook to learn the extent of mentoring programs in its departments and divisions and to compare the experiences of underrepresented-minority faculty and others. The results were used to establish a system for mentoring and networking support for minority faculty members. Examining the reports of division and department heads on their formal mentoring programs, it was clear that these leaders considered a mentor essential for career development, but many reported having no systematic plan for mentors for junior faculty. In looking at the reported experiences of minority and non-minority assistant professors (matched for promotion track, department, appointment date, and, where possible, gender), it was found that approximately half of either group did not have mentors. As a result of this information, the school established a faculty development program to meet the faculty members' demonstrated needs: annual career development meetings with new minority faculty; assistance in identifying and assigning mentors; assistance in developing research skills; and monitoring of the retention of minority faculty. As experience with the program produces additional insights into the needs of minority faculty--and particularly of junior faculty--the program will be adjusted and expanded to meet these identified needs.     

"Having the right chemistry": a qualitative study of mentoring in academic medicine.

PURPOSE: To develop a deeper understanding of mentoring by exploring lived experiences of academic medicine faculty members. Mentoring relationships are key to developing productive careers in academic medicine, but such alliances hold a certain "mystery." METHOD: Using qualitative techniques, between November 1999 and March 2000, the authors conducted individual telephone interviews of 16 faculty members about their experiences with mentoring. Interviews were taped and transcribed and authors identified major themes through multiple readings. A consensus taxonomy for classifying content evolved from comparisons of coding by four reviewers. Themes expressed by participants were studied for patterns of connection and grouped into broader categories. RESULTS: Almost 98% of participants identified lack of mentoring as the first (42%) or second (56%) most important factor hindering career progress in academic medicine. Finding a suitable mentor requires effort and persistence. Effective mentoring necessitates a certain chemistry for an appropriate interpersonal match. Prized mentors have "clout," knowledge, and interest in the mentees, and provide both professional and personal support. In cross-gender mentoring, maintaining clear boundaries is essential for an effective relationship. Same-gender or same-race matches between mentor and mentee were not felt to be essential. CONCLUSIONS: Having a mentor is critical to having a successful career in academic medicine. Mentees need to be diligent in seeking out these relationships and institutions need to encourage and value the work of mentors. Participants without formalized mentoring relationships should look to peers and colleagues for assistance in navigating the academic system.     

Generation X: implications for faculty recruitment and development in academic health centers.

Differences and tensions between the Baby Boom generation (born 1945-1962) and Generation X (born 1963-1981) have profound implications for the future of academic medicine. By and large, department heads and senior faculty are Boomers; today's residents and junior faculty are Generation X'ers. Looking at these issues in terms of the generations involved offers insights into a number of faculty development challenges, including inadequate and inexpert mentoring, work-life conflicts, and low faculty morale. These insights suggest strategies for strengthening academic medicine's recruitment and retention of Generation X into faculty and leadership roles. These strategies include (1) improving career and academic advising by specific attention to mentoring "across differences"--for instance, broaching the subject of formative differences in background during the initial interaction; adopting a style that incorporates information-sharing with engagement in problem solving; offering frequent, frank feedback; and refraining from comparing today to the glories of yesterday; to support such improvements, medical schools should recognize and evaluate mentoring as a core academic responsibility; (2) retaining both valued women and men in academic careers by having departments add temporal flexibility and create and legitimize less-than-full-time appointments; and (3) providing trainees and junior faculty with ready access to educational sessions designed to turn their "intellectual capital" into "academic career capital."Given the trends discussed in this article, such supports and adaptations are indicated to assure that academic health centers maintain traditions of excellence.     

Empowering junior faculty: Penn State's faculty development and mentoring program.

Empowerment of faculty is essential for academic success. The Junior Faculty Development Program (JFDP), sponsored by the Office of Professional Development of the Penn State College of Medicine, was established in 2003 with the goal of promoting the development and advancement of junior faculty so they can achieve success in their academic careers. The program consists of two components: a curriculum in research, education, clinical practice, and career development, and an individual project completed under the guidance of a senior faculty mentor. The curriculum provides faculty with knowledge, skills, and resources. Mentoring provides relationships and support. Together, these elements combine to empower junior faculty to better manage their careers.The effectiveness of the program has been demonstrated by several measures: participants evaluated the program highly, demonstrated increases in their perceptions of their own abilities, and completed tasks important to the advancement of their careers. Participants stated they were better prepared to advance their academic careers and that the individual projects would contribute to their career advancement.On the basis of this experience, the authors suggest that faculty development programs should empower faculty so that they can more effectively chart a successful career in academic medicine. This report describes an empowerment model, and the design, implementation, and evaluation of the Junior Faculty Development Program in 2003-04 and 2004-05. The authors offer this program as a model for the benefit of other institutions and for one of their most valuable assets: junior faculty.     

A mentoring program for underrepresented-minority students at the University of Rochester School of Medicine.

Mentoring underrepresented-minority (URM) students poses a special challenge because most medical schools have few URM faculty and many non-URM faculty hesitate to be mentors for URM students. Some medical students perform less well in the clinical years than would be expected from their pre-clinical performances. One factor is some students' difficulty in adapting to the culture of medicine, which mentors can help students overcome. The University of Rochester School of Medicine created the Medical Student Mentoring Program to address the needs of URM students and non-URM faculty who could be mentors. The program, offered in 1995-96 and 1996-97, trained mentors, created a bicultural support group for URM students, and provided structured mentoring. Interviews were conducted with faculty and students to identify critical areas that influence the success of URM students in their clinical years; URM faculty, residents, and advanced students shared their experiences with the program students at reflection group meetings. Mentors participated in an initial orientation. Of the 42 students eligible during 1995-1997, 30 participated and were assigned to 15 mentors. At the end of the program's first year, the students and mentors gave their reactions, and although there were some differences in their viewpoints, overall they considered the program useful. Non-URM faculty appreciated the support and guidance that allowed them to mentor URM students more effectively. The program ran formally for two years, and some of the mentoring relationships continued into the third year. Loss of funding and change in administrative leadership contributed to the ending of this program. Mentoring continues to be a priority at the medical center, and a new mentoring program has been developed for URM and non-URM medical students.     

Ensuring the success of women faculty at AMCs: lessons learned from the National Centers of Excellence in Women's Health.

Since the early 1970s, the numbers of women entering medical school and, subsequently, academic medicine have increased substantially. However, women faculty have not advanced at the expected rate to senior academic ranks or positions of leadership. In 1996, to counter this trend, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Office on Women's Health included women's leadership as a required component of the nationally funded Centers of Excellence in Women's Health to identify effective strategies and initiate model programs to advance women faculty in academic medicine. The authors describe the experience of Centers at seven U.S. medical schools in initiating and sustaining leadership programs for women. The processes used for program formation, the current programmatic content, and program evaluation approaches are explained. Areas of success (e.g., obtaining support from the institution's leaders) and difficulties faced in maintaining an established program (such as institutional fiscal constraints and the diminishing time available to women to participate in mentoring and leadership activities) are reviewed. Strategies to overcome these and other difficulties (e.g., prioritize and tightly focus the program with the help of an advisory group) are proposed. The authors conclude by reviewing issues that programs for women in academic medicine will increasingly need to focus on (e.g., development of new kinds of skills; issues of recruitment and retention of faculty; and increasing faculty diversity).     

Innovative mentoring programs to promote gender equity in academic medicine.

The authors describe the history, characteristics, and goals of four innovative programs, each in a medical school, that were established in 1998 to help faculty members of both sexes obtain mentors and thereby facilitate their career advancement. The programs were established as the result of an initiative by the Office on Women's Health (OWH) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Specifically, the OWH convened the National Task Force on Mentoring for Health Professionals, which determined that two principles are paramount to the success of any mentoring relationship or program: institutional commitment and institutional rewards and recognition to mentors. In accordance with the task force findings, the OWH created the National Centers of Leadership in Academic Medicine, one at each of four medical schools: MCP Hahnemann School of Medicine; the University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine; East Carolina University School of Medicine; and Meharry Medical College School of Medicine. The authors give highlights of each program's goals and progress, and note that, ideally, these programs will eventually serve as models for similar programs at other schools. Programs such as these foster the advancement of a diverse faculty, a more supportive academic environment, and the education of providers who are sensitive to the needs of all their patients, staff, and colleagues.     

The Emory Global Health Institute: developing partnerships to improve health through research, training, and service.

The authors discuss the Emory Global Health Institute, an organization that advances Emory University's global health efforts by providing guidance and financial support to Emory faculty, students, and alumni as they develop and implement global health initiatives. They discuss both the external and internal factors that led to the September 2006 establishment of the institute, as well as Emory's existing global health strengths on which it was founded. These strengths include Emory's schools of medicine, nursing, and public health, which were already deeply engaged in global health work, and Emory's long-standing partnerships with government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and other academic institutions working on a variety of global health problems.The institute serves as an internal resource for the entire Emory University community as its members work to solve critical global health issues around the world. The authors discuss the institute's vision, mission, goals, activities, and early accomplishments. They also discuss the institute's plans for the future and the challenges they foresee. In addition, the authors emphasize that it is important for academic institutions to establish strong global partnerships. Universities are much more likely to be successful in both launching and sustaining global health programs if they work in a true partnership with people who know firsthand what their health concerns are and how to best address them in their communities. The authors conclude that global health provides an opportunity for academic institutions to put aside their competitive tendencies and work collaboratively to address global health challenges.     

Women's attitudes toward careers in academic medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.

In order to identify the concerns and possible barriers for women considering careers in academic medicine, in 1990 the authors surveyed both men and women medical students, housestaff, postdoctoral students, and junior faculty at The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). The authors achieved a 58% response rate from students and faculty, a 21% response rate from postdoctoral students, and a 15% response rate from housestaff. Results indicated that women at all levels were less interested in academic careers than were their male colleagues. Concerns about balancing family responsibilities, clinical practice, and teaching in addition to the research required of an academic career were mentioned most frequently. Women, especially those among the housestaff and junior faculty, reported fewer mentor relationships and role models. The authors discuss these findings in relation to other studies and describe what they are doing to foster women's interest and success in academic medicine at UCSF.     

Addressing the gate blocking of minority faculty

There have been ongoing efforts to increase the presence of underrepresented minorities in medicine (URMM), including faculty development initiatives, mentoring programs and outreach efforts. However, URMM faculty face unique challenges that are crucial for academic institutions and leaders to recognize in order to improve retention of this group and allow for meaningful advancement in the field. This paper introduces the concept of gate blocking, defined as what happens to minority faculty as a result of the consequences of the minority tax and systems designed to advantage some and disadvantage others. In addition to defining gate blocking, the authors make recommendations to address this concern in academic medicine and promote the advancement and retention of URMM faculty.     

Results of an academic promotion and career path survey of faculty at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

PURPOSE: Clinician-educator faculty are increasing in numbers in academic medical centers, but their academic advancement is slower than that of research faculty. The authors sought to quantify the magnitude of this difference in career advancement and to explore the characteristics of faculty that might explain the difference. METHOD: In 1999, a questionnaire was administered to all MD faculty at the rank of instructor and above (259) in the Department of Medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. RESULTS: A total of 180 (69%) faculty returned questionnaires. Of these, 178 identified with one of four career paths: basic researcher (46), clinical researcher (69), academic clinician (38), or teacher-clinician (25). Career path did not differ by age, gender, rank, years on faculty, hours worked per week, family responsibility, or global work satisfaction. After adjusting for age, gender, time at rank, and work satisfaction, the odds of being at a higher rank were 85% less for academic clinicians (odds ratio,.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.40) and 69% less for teacher-clinicians (odds ratio,.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.88) than for basic researchers. Clinical researchers did not differ from basic researchers in the likelihood of being at higher rank. Similarly, compared with basic research faculty, the adjusted odds of being more satisfied with progress towards academic promotion were 92% lower for academic clinicians and 87% lower for teacher-clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician-educator faculty were less likely to be at higher rank at this institution than were faculty in research paths. Differences in rank may be explained by lower rank at hire for faculty in these career paths, time available for scholarly activities, or other resources available to support scholarship. Retaining clinician-educators will require further exploration of barriers to promotion inherent to these career paths and methods of modifying these barriers.     

A conceptual model for faculty development in academic medicine: the underrepresented minority faculty experience

In May 2010, the Association of American Medical Colleges reported that nonwhite professors have a lower promotion rate than white professors. A cohort of 30 underrepresented minority (URM) junior faculty who participated in a structured faculty development program at a public, research-intensive, academic medical center were followed in a 10-year longitudinal study. This paper reports on the career status of 12 of the 30 URM faculty who were eligible for promotion during this period. Ninety-two percent (11/12) of URM faculty eligible for promotion were promoted to associate professor. When asked what factors contributed to their success, these URM faculty identified access and support of senior faculty mentors, peer networking, professional skill development, and knowledge of institutional culture. A faculty development program that addresses these components can promote the success of URM faculty in academic medicine.     

The advisory dean program: a personalized approach to academic and career advising for medical students.

Advising and mentoring programs for medical students vary in their official names, scope, and structures. Catalyzed by negative student feedback regarding career advising and a perceived disconnection between faculty and students, in academic year 2003-2004, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons implemented its formal Advisory Dean (AD) Program and disbanded its former advising system that used faculty volunteers. The AD Program has become a key element for enhancing the students' professional development throughout their student training, focusing on topics including, but not limited to, career counseling, professionalism, humanism, and wellness resources. Advisory deans and the dean for student affairs, familiar with resources for academic development, student support, and extracurricular activities, operate at the nexus of the program, providing personalized mentoring and advising for each student. Fully supported by administration and faculty, the program has shown early success according to student feedback. Early feedback from the Class of 2006, who had been involved in our AD Program for three years, has been encouraging. Out of 152 students, 104 (68%) provided feedback, with 93 (89%) of the respondents reporting the AD Program as a valuable initiative. Expecting to further improve on this early positive response, the AD Program will continue to foster an environment conducive to a seamless transition from student to physician.