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.     

Attitudes of faculty, housestaff, and medical students toward clinical practice guidelines.

PURPOSE: To examine attitudes of faculty, housestaff, and medical students toward clinical practice guidelines. METHOD: In a 1997 cross-sectional survey, a two-part, 26-item, self-administered questionnaire was mailed to all faculty, housestaff, and medical students in the department of internal medicine at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. The questionnaire asked for demographic information and attitudes toward clinical guidelines. RESULTS: Of 379 persons surveyed, 254 (67%) returned usable questionnaires: 56% of the medical students, 70% of the housestaff, and 73% of the full-time faculty. Medical students reported learning about guidelines predominantly during clerkships in internal medicine (71%) and pediatrics (68%). Overall, the respondents agreed most strongly that guidelines are "useful for the care of common problems," and least strongly that guidelines are "difficult to apply to individual patients" and "reduce physician options in patient care." Faculty were more likely to consider guidelines a "good educational tool" and less likely than were medical students and housestaff to agree that they promote "cookbook medicine." Of 11 influences on clinical decision making, the three groups together rated practice guidelines eighth or ninth. The use of guidelines for academic investigations was rated most appropriate, overall. In terms of their appropriateness, faculty consistently rated the use of guidelines more favorably except for use in malpractice suits. CONCLUSION: Faculty, housestaff, and medical students have significantly different perceptions of and attitudes toward clinical practice guidelines. Further studies are needed to explain the reasons for these differences. Considerable education and involvement must occur at all levels for practice guidelines to be successfully implemented and understood.     

Effects of performance-based compensation and faculty track on the clinical activity, research portfolio, and teaching mission of a large academic department of medicine.

PURPOSE: Academic departments of medicine must compete effectively for extramural research support and access to patients while preserving their teaching mission. There is not much literature describing plausible mechanisms for ensuring success. The authors describe the design, implementation, and testing of a performance-based compensation plan in a department of medicine that is closely linked to the faculty appointment track. METHOD: Over a three-year period, the changes this plan effected in research portfolio, clinical enterprise, and faculty satisfaction as well as the teaching perceptions of students and housestaff were measured. RESULTS: The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for clinical work grew 40% faster after plan implementation. Federal funding increased at a CAGR that was 170% greater than before. The department halved its award rankings at the National Institutes of Health and faculty satisfaction improved compared with the former method of compensation. Faculty who better understood the plan were more satisfied with the conversion. High measures of teaching quality were maintained by faculty with no apparent change in satisfaction among students or housestaff. CONCLUSIONS: This performance-based compensation plan with its emphasis on the objectives of career orientation and faculty track assignment strengthened the opportunity to grow both clinical productivity and the funded research portfolio.     

M.D.-Ph.D. training at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1962-1991.

From 1962 to 1991, 150 students earned both the M.D. and the Ph.D. degrees in a combined program of study at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (JHUSM). Seventy-five of these individuals were supported by the Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) of the National Institutes of Health. The authors analyzed the professional development of these dual-degree recipients, focusing particularly on the 109 M.D.-Ph.D.s who graduated since 1980, when the first MSTP-supported student received both degrees. Of the 109 graduates since 1980, 42 are now in career positions. Thirty-four of the 42 graduates (81%) obtained clinical housestaff training, and 21 of the 34 also had postdoctoral science training. Nearly all of the 42 M.D.-Ph.D.s are in full-time academic posts (81%) or positions in research institutes (14%); the remaining 5% hold research positions in biotechnology firms. All 42 graduates are actively involved in research, and 67% have regular and well-defined clinical responsibilities. Analysis of the representation of M.D.-Ph.D.s on the JHUSM faculty from 1962 to 1991 shows a striking increase with time in the percentage of M.D.-Ph.D.s among the full-time faculty, particularly at the level of assistant professor. These findings suggest that M.D.-Ph.D. graduates nationwide are being recruited in increasing numbers to medical school faculties and are pursuing medical careers encompassing both research and clinical practice.     

Repaving the road to academic success: the IMeRGE approach to peer mentoring.

In recent years, academic health centers have made a considerable effort to encourage medical students and physicians-in-training to consider academic medicine as a career choice. For physicians, selecting a career in academic medicine may be the first hurdle, but the challenge of successfully maintaining an academic career is perhaps a more formidable task. Mentoring is a much-needed response to this challenge. But the success of traditional mentoring programs at academic institutions is often limited by, among other things, the availability of senior faculty who can serve as mentors. The authors describe the formation and organization of the Internal Medicine Research Group at Emory (IMeRGE), an innovative peer mentoring group within the Division of General Medicine at Emory University. This group, born partially out of the mentoring needs of our women and minority faculty, shared the primary goal of fostering a collaborative atmosphere among junior faculty, while simultaneously acquiring experience through advanced faculty development. The authors present our methods of garnering division support for designated time and financial resources, defining member responsibilities, developing a curriculum, providing peer support, and seeking advisors with expertise in the areas on which we wished to focus. In addition to the development of IMeRGE, the authors provide an overview of the pros and cons of traditional mentoring versus peer mentoring; discuss the challenges faced by IMeRGE and strategies for addressing these issues; and present the paradigm of IMeRGE as a template for alternative forms of academic mentorship.     

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.     

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.     

Increasing women's leadership in academic medicine: report of the AAMC Project Implementation Committee.

The AAMC's Increasing Women's Leadership Project Implementation Committee examined four years of data on the advancement of women in academic medicine. With women comprising only 14% of tenured faculty and 12% of full professors, the committee concludes that the progress achieved is inadequate. Because academic medicine needs all the leaders it can develop to address accelerating institutional and societal needs, the waste of most women's potential is of growing importance. Only institutions able to recruit and retain women will be likely to maintain the best housestaff and faculty. The long-term success of academic health centers is thus inextricably linked to the development of women leaders. The committee therefore recommends that medical schools, teaching hospitals, and academic societies (1) emphasize faculty diversity in departmental reviews, evaluating department chairs on their development of women faculty; (2) target women's professional development needs within the context of helping all faculty maximize their faculty appointments, including helping men become more effective mentors of women; (3) assess which institutional practices tend to favor men's over women's professional development, such as defining "academic success" as largely an independent act and rewarding unrestricted availability to work (i.e., neglect of personal life); (4) enhance the effectiveness of search committees to attract women candidates, including assessment of group process and of how candidates' qualifications are defined and evaluated; and (5) financially support institutional Women in Medicine programs and the AAMC Women Liaison Officer and regularly monitor the representation of women at senior ranks.     

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.     

Effects of perceptions and mentorship on pursuing a career in academic medicine in obstetrics and gynecology.

PURPOSE: To understand the perceptions of residents and Fellows in obstetrics and gynecology about the impacts of race or ethnicity, gender, and mentorship experiences on pursuing careers in academic medicine. METHOD: Two surveys were administered: one to a sample of 2,000 Fellows of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and one to the 4,814 obstetrics and gynecology residents taking the 1998 in-training examination. The questionnaires asked about demographics, perceptions about careers in academic medicine, and residents' experiences with mentorship. RESULTS: Response rates were 96.8% for residents and 40.6% for FELLOWS: Of the residents, 26.1% indicated they would not consider a career in academic medicine. First-year women residents were more inclined to pursue careers in academic medicine than were first-year men (p =.042), but their interest declined during residency. Women residents (43%)-especially minorities-felt that men were mentored and recruited more for faculty positions, while men (38%) felt that women were mentored and recruited more. Fellows' reports of recruitment did not differ by gender. Most white residents did not perceive racial or ethnic bias in mentoring or recruiting, while most non-white residents did. Almost one third of non-white women residents felt that supervisors were more likely to condescend to women and minority individuals. CONCLUSIONS: It is likely that neither men nor women residents in obstetrics and gynecology receive adequate mentorship for careers in academic medicine. Perceptions of bias are a serious barrier to developing racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in leadership positions.     

Implications of the hospitalist model for medical students' education.

At many academic health centers, medical students in internal medicine, family medicine, and pediatrics are working with a new form of attending physician, the hospitalist. Although a growing literature demonstrates the benefits of hospitalists for patients and housestaff, the influence of hospitalists on students has been underemphasized. Advantages of the hospitalist model for students can include hospitalists' expertise in general inpatient medicine, their availability to teach throughout the day, and their role-modeling of the provision of high-quality and efficient care. However, the change in the ward attending workforce from non-hospitalist generalists, subspecialists, and biomedical researchers to generalist-hospitalists potentially limits students' exposure to the broad range of career opportunities the former group represents. The authors propose a research agenda to investigate the educational impact of the hospitalist model, suggest strategies to mitigate the limitations in students' exposures to subspecialty faculty, and recommend professional development in teaching for hospitalists to ensure that student education thrives in this new environment of inpatient medicine.     

Effect of two Howard Hughes Medical Institute research training programs for medical students on the likelihood of pursuing research careers.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of Howard Hughes Medical Institute's (HHMI) two one-year research training programs for medical students on the awardees' research careers. METHOD: Awardees of the HHMI Cloister Program who graduated between 1987 and 1995 and awardees of the HHMI Medical Fellows Program who graduated between 1991 and 1995 were compared with unsuccessful applicants to the programs and MD-PhD students who graduated during the same periods. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess research career outcomes while controlling for academic and demographic variables that could affect selection to the programs. RESULTS: Participation in both HHMI programs increased the likelihood of receiving National Institutes of Health postdoctoral support. Participation in the Cloister Program also increased the likelihood of receiving a faculty appointment with research responsibility at a medical school. In addition, awardees of the Medical Fellows Program were not significantly less likely than Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) and non-MSTP MD-PhD program participants to receive a National Institutes of Health postdoctoral award, and awardees of the Cloister Program were not significantly less likely than non-MSTP MD-PhD students to receive a faculty appointment with research responsibility. Women and underrepresented minority students were proportionally represented among awardees of the two HHMI programs whereas they were relatively underrepresented in MD-PhD programs. CONCLUSIONS: The one-year intensive research training supported by the HHMI training programs appears to provide an effective imprinting experience on medical students' research careers and to be an attractive strategy for training physician-scientists.     

Women physicians in dual-physician relationships compared with those in other dual-career relationships.

This study compared the career and domestic responsibilities of women physicians whose domestic partners were physicians (WP-Ps) with those of women physicians whose domestic partners were not physicians (WP-NPs). In 1988 the authors surveyed 602 women physicians in a large midwestern city regarding their career and domestic roles; 390 were physicians in training (students and residents), and 212 were physicians in practice (academic medicine and private practice). Overall, 382 (63%) responded; of the 382, 247 (65%) had domestic partners; of these 247, 91 (37%) were WP-Ps and 156 (63%) were WP-NPs. The WP-Ps were found to be twice as likely as the WP-NPs to interrupt their careers to accommodate their partners' careers. The WP-Ps also assumed significantly more domestic responsibilities and worked fewer hours practicing medicine than did the WP-NPs. The 163 women physicians in training (44-48%-of the WP-Ps and 119-76%-of the WP-NPs) demonstrated a more egalitarian division of labor overall, with no significant differences between the WP-Ps and the WP-NPs. The authors recommend that longitudinal studies be undertaken to determine whether women physicians in training continue this trend as they enter the practice of medicine.     

Specialty choices, compensation, and career satisfaction of underrepresented minority faculty in academic medicine.

PURPOSE: Despite efforts to increase the numbers of underrepresented minorities (URMs), only 3.9% of medical school faculty are URMs. The authors compared the specialty choices, compensation, and career satisfaction of minority faculty with those of their majority counterparts to determine whether there were differences that might affect the recruitment and retention of minority faculty. METHOD: In 1995, the authors mailed a self-administered survey to a stratified random sample of 3,013 eligible full-time salaried faculty in 24 randomly selected medical schools. Those schools, which had at least 200 faculty, did not include the Puerto Rican or historically black medical schools. RESULTS: Of the eligible faculty surveyed, 1,807 (60%) responded; 1,463 were majority faculty, 195 were URM faculty, and 149 were other-minority faculty. Similar proportions of the three groups were in the primary care specialties. Only 11% of the URM respondents were in basic science departments. There was no significant difference in adjusted mean compensation between majority, URM, and other-minority faculty. However, URM faculty were significantly less satisfied with their careers (adjusted scores: 60 versus > 65; p = .001) and more often considered leaving academic medicine within five years (58% versus < 45%). CONCLUSION: Given the demographic changes of the U.S. population, these issues should be addressed by deans and department heads in order to enhance recruitment and facilitate retention of URM faculty in academic medicine.     

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).     

The Jefferson-Penn State B.S.-M.D. program: a 26-year experience.

Since the 1960s a number of physicians have completed both their baccalaureate and their M.D. degrees in six or fewer years. In this longitudinal study the authors track the academic performances, clinical ratings, and career follow-up data of 659 students in one of these accelerated programs, the Jefferson Medical College-Pennsylvania State University B.S.-M.D. program, from entering years 1964 through 1989. The medical school performances, clinical performances in residencies, and rates of board certification and faculty appointment of the accelerated students compared favorably with those of a control group of medical students with similar high school credentials who had followed a four-year baccalaureate program. The authors conclude that a carefully chosen group of students can achieve high academic standards in an accelerated medical school program, graduate as younger physicians able to perform well in postgraduate training, and go on to highly productive careers in medicine.     

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.     

Academic ranks and medical schools of underrepresented minority faculty in family medicine departments.

PURPOSE: To examine academic rankings and educational backgrounds of underrepresented minority (URM) family medicine faculty and compare their academic ranks with national trends. The authors also determined the extent to which international and historically black educational institutions contributed URM faculty to family medicine. METHOD: In 1999 questionnaires were sent to 129 family medicine departments asking for academic ranks and educational institutions attended by their URM faculty. Comparisons were made between URM faculty's academic ranks and all family medicine faculty, medical school minority faculty, and medical school faculty. RESULTS: A total of 80% of URM faculty were assistant professors or instructors, and 4.4% were professors. URM family medicine faculty had significantly lower rankings compared with medical school minority faculty and all family medicine faculty. URM family medicine faculty at historically black medical schools were more likely to have received their degrees from historically black undergraduate institutions and medical schools than were URM family medicine faculty at non-historically-black medical schools. CONCLUSIONS: URM family medicine faculty appear to experience a double disadvantage: being minority and working for family medicine departments. Their academic ranks remain far below those of both minority medical school faculty and family medicine faculty, a discouraging finding considering the current shortage of URM faculty in family medicine departments. Historically black medical schools cannot address the shortage alone, so non-historically-black medical schools need to both recruit URM faculty and follow up with appropriate mentoring of those faculty.