A mission-based reporting system applied to an academic pathology department

We report how data from the University of California (UC) Davis mission-based reporting system (MBR) can be used to define contributions for each division within a Department of Pathology based on faculty rank and series, and to evaluate whether these contributions are in alignment with the missions of the department and the goals of the school's leadership. MBR summary reports were generated for each division within the Department of Pathology; these reports illustrated the average contribution for each faculty rank and series in each of the following missions: investigative/creative work (research), teaching, clinical service, and administrative/community service. All divisions contributed equally to the teaching mission, averaging approximately 1/3 of a faculty member's time. Research was the primary mission for faculty in both the Research and the Clinical Pathology divisions, whereas clinical service was the primary mission for Anatomic Pathology. Both Anatomic Pathology and Clinical Pathology also played a large role in the administration/community service mission. These roles were appropriate based on the division's distribution of faculty in each of the faculty series. The average contribution to both the research and administrative/community service missions were larger for the Department of Pathology than it was for the school as a whole. The Department of Pathology's average contribution to both the teaching and clinical service missions was less than the school's average. We conclude that MBR data creates unique profiles for divisions and the department and enables interdepartmental comparisons that would not be possible by other means. Within the context of our school, the present analysis illustrates that the Department of Pathology is fulfilling the expectations of the school's leadership. In a more general sense, these profiles allow appropriate monitoring of the workforce, funds flow analysis, allocation of resources, and strategic planning in an academic medical center.     

Creating a mission-based reporting system at an academic health center.

The authors developed a Web-based mission-based reporting (MBR) system for their university's (UC Davis's) health system to report faculty members' activities in research and creative work, clinical service, education, and community/university service. They developed the system over several years (1998-2001) in response to a perceived need to better define faculty members' productivity for faculty development, financial management, and program assessment. The goal was to create a measurement tool that could be used by department chairs to counsel faculty on their performances. The MBR system provides measures of effort for each of the university's four missions. Departments or the school can use the output to better define expenditures and allocations of resources. The system provides both a quantitative metric of times spent on various activities within each mission, and a qualitative metric for the effort expended. The authors report the process of developing the MBR system and making it applicable for both clinical and basic science departments, and the mixed success experienced in its implementation. The system appears to depict the activities of most faculty fairly accurately, and chairs of test departments have been generally enthusiastic. However, resistance to general implementation remains, chiefly due to concerns about reliability, validity, and time required for completing the report. The authors conclude that MBR can be useful but will require some streamlining and the elimination of other redundant reporting instruments. A well-defined purpose is required to motivate its use.     

Women physicians in academic medicine: new insights from cohort studies

BACKGROUND: I conducted a study to determine whether women who graduate from medical schools are more or less likely than their male counterparts to pursue full-time careers in academic medicine and to advance to the senior ranks of medical school faculties. METHODS: The rates of advancement to the ranks of assistant, associate, and full professor for all U.S. medical school graduates from 1979 through 1993 and for all members of U.S. medical school faculties from 1979 through 1997 were studied. Cohorts were defined on the basis of the year of graduation from medical school, track (tenure or nontenure), and academic department. Within each cohort, the number of women who advanced to a senior rank was compared with the number that would be expected on the basis of parity between men and women, and 95 percent confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: Women were significantly more likely than men to pursue an academic career. During the study period, 634 more women became faculty members than expected. The numbers were higher in the older cohorts than in the younger cohorts. The numbers of women who advanced to the ranks of associate and full professor were significantly lower than the expected numbers. This was true for both tenure and nontenure tracks, even after adjustment for the department. A total of 334 fewer women advanced to associate professor than expected, and 44 fewer women advanced to full professor than expected. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities persist in the advancement of men and women on medical school faculties. However, the numbers of women physicians at all levels of academic medicine are increasing.     

The impact of a program for systematically recognizing and rewarding academic performance.

PURPOSE: To describe an academic performance incentive system (APIS) and faculty perception of it; explore the impacts of incentive level, faculty rank, clinical practice volume, and administrative responsibility on academic productivity; and describe the APIS's use in maintaining congruence between department mission and activities. METHOD: A list of teaching, research, and academic service activities was developed, which full-time faculty (n = 33) used to report activities. Clinical faculty members received incentive income based on credits earned. APIS initially distributed 1% of practice plan receipts (subsequently increased to 3% and then 5%). Productivity was measured by differences in APIS points achieved. Satisfaction of all faculty participants was measured by survey. RESULTS: Faculty members (n = 20) who participated throughout averaged 22 credits per month (nine to 42 credits), and quarterly incentive bonuses ranged from 145 US dollars to 6,128 US dollars. Average credits earned per month were 24 for the 1% incentive, 23 for the 3% incentive, and 20 for the 5% incentive. Faculty members with administrative responsibilities were as productive academically as were their non-administrative counterparts. Senior faculty members were as productive as junior faculty. Faculty members who were more productive clinically were more productive academically. Seventy percent of respondents reported they were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the APIS. Seventy-eight percent felt that the APIS accurately reflected their academic productivity. Most respondents (81%) felt that the amount of money allocated to the incentive system was appropriate (15% felt it should be increased and one respondent recommended reduction). CONCLUSIONS: The APIS system has been well accepted by faculty and allows for data-driven discussion of the department's mission and activities.     

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.     

Mission aligned management and allocation: a successfully implemented model of mission-based budgeting.

In response to declining funding support and increasing competition, medical schools have developed financial management models to assure that resource allocation supports core mission-related activities. The authors describe the development and implementation of such a model at the University of Wisconsin Medical School. The development occurred in three phases and included consensus building on the need for mission-based budgeting, extensive faculty involvement to create a credible model, and decisions about basic principles for the model. While each school may encounter different constraints and opportunities, the authors outline a series of generic issues that any medical school is likely to face when implementing a mission-based budgeting model. These issues include decisions about the amounts and sources of funds to be used in the budgeting process, whether funds should be allocated at the department or individual faculty level, the specific metrics for measuring academic activities, the relative amounts for research and teaching activities, and how to use the budget process to support new initiatives and strategic priorities. The University of Wisconsin Medical School's Mission Aligned Management and Allocation (MAMA) model was implemented in 1999. The authors discuss implementation issues, including timetable, formulas used to cap budget changes among departments during phase-in, outcome measures used to monitor the effect of the new budget model, and a process for school-wide budget oversight. Finally, they discuss outcomes tracked during two years of full implementation to assess the success of the new MAMA budget process.     

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.     

Clinical faculty tracks and academic success at the University of California Medical Schools.

PURPOSE: To describe the five faculty series for medical school faculty in the University of California (UC) system, their criteria for advancement, associated challenges, and the different ways they are used by each school. METHOD: During 2001-02, the associate dean for academic affairs at each UC medical school was interviewed for information on the number of faculty in each academic series, the role of each series, and problematic issues associated with them. The averaged merit and promotion results for each series for 1999-2002 at the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, were examined. RESULTS: The two clinical faculty series showed the most variability among the UC campuses for number of faculty, and strategy for appointment and advancement. The percentage of faculty in the Clinical X series varied from 8% to 39% at the five campuses. All campuses agreed that faculty in the Clinical X series must participate in applied or translational clinical investigation or educational investigation, and disseminate their work. All campuses required that the Ladder-Rank and In-Residence faculty devote the majority of their time to hypothesis-driven research. At University of California, Davis, the two clinical series had the highest approval rates for merits and promotion actions. The Ladder-Rank series had the highest denial rate for merits and promotion. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical series in the UC system are used differently at the five medical schools. Appointing junior faculty in series with minimal expectations as a "safe starting place" is favored for building long-term faculty. Faculty in all series tend to do well in the academic review process, indicating that these series define distinct expectations. Clinical faculty's accomplishments are increasingly understood, valued, and rewarded.     

Gender differences in academic advancement: patterns, causes, and potential solutions in one US College of Medicine.

PURPOSE: The influx of women into academic medicine has not been accompanied by equality for male and female faculty. Women earn less than men in comparable positions, progress more slowly through academic ranks, and have not attained important leadership roles. This study tested hypotheses about why gender disparities exist in salary, rank, track, leadership, and perceptions of campus climate at one academic center, the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson. METHOD: Salary, rank, and track data were obtained from institutional databases for the 1999-2000 fiscal year. A structured, online questionnaire was made available to 418 faculty members to collect information about their goals, attitudes, and experiences. RESULTS: A total of 198 faculty members completed the questionnaire. The data showed significant gender differences in faculty salaries, ranks, tracks, leadership positions, resources, and perceptions of academic climate. On average, women earned US dollars 12777 or 11% less than men, after adjusting for rank, track, degree, specialty, years in rank, and administrative positions (p <.0003). Of female faculty, 62% were assistant professors (49% of women were non-tenure-eligible assistant professors), while 55% of male faculty were promoted and tenured. Almost a third of women reported being discriminated against, compared with only 5% of men (p <.00001). CONCLUSION: Substantial gender differences in the rewards and opportunities of academic medicine remain, that can not be attributed to differences in productivity or commitment between women and men.     

Community-engaged scholarship: is faculty work in communities a true academic enterprise?

Since Ernest Boyer's landmark 1990 report, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, leaders in higher education, including academic medicine, have advocated that faculty members apply their expertise in new and creative ways in partnership with communities. Such community engagement can take many forms, including community-based teaching, research, clinical care, and service. There continues to be a gap, however, between the rhetoric of this idea and the reality of how promotion and tenure actually work in health professions schools. The Commission on Community-Engaged Scholarship in the Health Professions was established in October 2003 with funding from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation to take a leadership role in creating a more supportive culture and reward system for community-engaged faculty in the nation's health professions schools. The authors prepared this article to inform the commission's deliberations and to stimulate discussion among educators in the health professions. The authors define the work that faculty engage in with communities, consider whether all work by faculty in community-based settings is actually scholarship, and propose a framework for documenting and assessing community-engaged scholarship for promotion and tenure decisions. They conclude with recommendations for change in academic health centers and health professions schools.     

The impact of the changing health care environment on the health and well-being of faculty at four medical schools.

PURPOSE: Increased pressure for clinical and research productivity and decreased control over the work environment have been reported to have adverse impacts on academic faculty in limited studies. The authors examined whether work-related stressors in academic medicine negatively affected the physical and mental health, as well as life and job satisfaction, of academic medical school faculty. METHOD: A 136-item self-administered anonymous questionnaire modified from a small 1984 study was distributed to 3,519 academic faculty at four U.S. medical schools following institutional review board approval at each school. Validated scales measuring depression, anxiety, work strain, and job and life satisfaction; a checklist of common physical and mental health symptoms; and questions about the impact of institutional financial stability, colleague attrition, and other work-related perceptions were used. Responses were analyzed by sex, academic rank, age, marital status, faculty discipline, and medical school. RESULTS: Responses were received from 1,951 full-time academic physicians and basic science faculty, a 54.3% response rate. Twenty percent of faculty, almost equal by sex, had significant levels of depressive symptoms, with higher levels in younger faculty. Perception of financial instability was associated with greater levels of work strain, depression, and anxiety. Significant numbers of faculty acknowledged that work-related strain negatively affected their mental health and job satisfaction, but not life satisfaction or physical health. Specialties were differentially affected. CONCLUSIONS: High levels of depression, anxiety, and job dissatisfaction-especially in younger faculty-raise concerns about the well-being of academic faculty and its impact on trainees and patient care. Increased awareness of these stressors should guide faculty support and development programs to ensure productive, stable faculty.     

Academic promotion at a medical school. Experience at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

We studied promotions at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine to determine whether clinician-teachers are less likely to be promoted or are promoted later in life than researchers and whether those who are promoted have more articles published than those who are not promoted. Over a five-year period, 93 percent of candidates for the rank of associate professor and 79 percent of the candidates for the rank of professor were promoted. There were no significant differences between clinical and research faculty members in terms of the probability that they would be promoted or their age at promotion to either associate professor or professor. Despite these findings, the responses to a questionnaire indicated that former faculty members perceived clinician-teachers as less likely than researchers to be promoted. Those who were promoted had had about twice as many articles published in peer-reviewed journals as those who were not promoted. We recommend improved counseling of medical school faculty members and more extensive discussion of the criteria for promotion and the chances of academic success.     

A clinically integrated curriculum in Evidence-based Medicine for just-in-time learning through on-the-job training: The EU-EBM project

Background

Little research has been conducted to investigate role stress experienced by faculty members in medical schools in developing countries. This becomes even more important when the process of reform in medical education has already taken place, such as the case of Iran. The objectives of this study were to investigate and assess the level and source of role-related stress as well as dimensions of conflict among the faculty members of Iranian medical schools. Variables like the length of academic work, academic rank, employment position, and the departments of affiliation were also taken into consideration in order to determine potentially related factors.

Methods

A survey was conducted at three different ranks of public medical schools. The validated Organizational Role Stress Scale was used to investigate the level of role stress and dimensions of role conflict among medical faculty members. The response rate was 66.5%.

Results

The findings show that role stress was experienced in high level among almost all faculty members. All three studied medical schools with different ranks are threatened with relatively the same levels of role stress. Specific differences were found among faculty members from different disciplines, and academic ranks. Also having permanent position and the length of services had significant correlation with the level of role stress. The major role- related stress and forms of conflict among faculty members were role overload, role expectation conflict, inter-role distance, resource inadequacy, role stagnation, and role isolation.

Conclusion

The most role-related stressors and forms of conflict among faculty members include too many tasks and everyday work load; conflicting demands from colleagues and superiors; incompatible demands from their different personal and organizational roles; inadequate resources for appropriate performance; insufficient competency to meet the demands of their role; inadequate autonomy to make decision on different tasks; and a feeling of underutilization. The findings of this study can assist administrators and policy makers to provide an attractive working climate in order to decrease side effects and consequences of role stress and to increase productivity of faculty members. Furthermore, understanding this situation can help to develop coping strategies in order to reduce role-related stress.     

Top producers of scholarly publications in clinical psychology PhD programs

Publication productivity of 1,927 core faculty members in clinical psychology training programs was tallied over a 5-year period (2000-2004) from their PsycINFO database entries (http://www.apa.org/psycinfo/). The top-producing faculty members are presented with rank by total number of publications and rank by number of peer-reviewed journal articles. In this report, the authors recognize those productive clinical psychologists in accredited clinical programs who have advanced the field through their substantial contributions to the literature base.     

How do academic health centers value and encourage clinical research?

To investigate whether there is a misalignment of the perceived values of and incentives for clinical research within U.S. academic health centers (AHCs), in 1999 the authors surveyed medical school deans, academic administrators, department chairs, and faculty members at 80 AHCs that are the members of the University HealthSystem Consortium, a not-for-profit consortium of AHCs. A total of 358 faculty from 58% of the institutions surveyed responded, with a mean of 3.76 responses/institution. There was general agreement that clinical research offers AHCs a considerable spectrum of benefits, including prestige, recruitment and retention of faculty, criteria for promotion of faculty, and financial support. Investigator-initiated research and government-funded research ranked highest in terms of their desirability compared with industry-sponsored and contract research. This preference was agreed upon across all categories of respondents and types of research (translational, clinical tests, and outcomes). Significant differences existed between the perceptions of deans/AHC administrators, who stated that they were increasing their emphasis on clinical investigation in the areas of research space (56% of responders), administrative support (81%), and patient recruitment (61%) and the perceptions of their departmental chairs/faculties in the same areas (34%, 52%, and 40%, respectively; p <.05). Faculty opinions documented few new investments in the actual infrastructure dedicated to clinical research. The authors conclude that their findings, which they consider reasonably representative, strongly suggest that the value of clinical research to AHCs is well understood. Their findings also identify important opportunities for AHCs to provide a wider range of incentives for the conduct of clinical research.     

The ability of a medical school admission process to predict clinical performance and patients' satisfaction.

PURPOSE: The authors evaluated the ability of a two-step admission process to predict clinical performance and patients' satisfaction on a third-year objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). METHOD: Subjects were three matriculating classes (1993, 1994, 1995) at one medical school. Data for the classes were analyzed separately. Independent variables were the Academic Profile (AP), an initial ranking of applicants based on grade-point ratio and MCAT scores, and the Selection Profile (SeP), an average of three interview scores. Interviews were offered based on AP rank, and admission was offered based on SeP rank. Dependent variables were total score on the faculty-graded portion of the OSCE and patients' satisfaction scores completed by the OSCE standardized patients. The authors evaluated the correlations between AP and OSCE performance and between SeP and OSCE performance. The authors also compared the OSCE performances of students whose ranks changed after interviews (SeP rank < AP rank or SeP rank > AP rank). The level of significance was adjusted for the number of comparisons (Bonferroni method). RESULTS: Complete data were available for 91% of eligible students (n = 222). No class showed a significant correlation between either AP or SeP rankings and OSCE performance (p > .01). Likewise, there was no difference in OSCE performance for students whose ranks changed after the interview. CONCLUSIONS: The admission ranking and interview process at this medical school did not predict clinical performance or patients' satisfaction on this OSCE.     

The emergence of academies of educational excellence: a survey of U.S. medical schools.

PURPOSE: To identify existing organizations that recognize faculty members' excellence as educators (Academies) in the United States, and describe the organizations' characteristics. METHOD: A 31-item questionnaire inquiring about Academies or equivalent programs was sent to deans of medical education at all 125 U.S. medical schools in February of 2003. Variables examined were general Academy characteristics such as membership selection criteria, goals, benefits of membership, and budget, as well as, estimates of prestige of membership and influence on recruiting new and current faculty to educational activities. RESULTS: Twenty of 97 (21%) respondents reported an implemented Academy or equivalent program (eight begun prior to 2000 and 11 subsequently). Most Academies (75%) did not "cap" membership size, and most (65%) offered lifetime membership. Budgets ranged from 0 dollars to more than 100,000 dollars per year. Full-time faculty status (100%) and involvement in direct undergraduate teaching (95%) affected eligibility the most. Nominations for membership most often came from department or section chairs (89%) and from peers (74%), and learners were involved in the final selection process at 18 of the Academies. Benefits of membership included networking/collaboration, school-wide recognition, and mentoring for educational skills development. The benefit of protected time was offered at only three institutions and was associated with having a larger budget. Respondents believe Academies positively influence faculty participation in educational activities. CONCLUSIONS: Academies are formal organizations recognizing faculty contributions to medical education, and they are increasing in number. They offer important benefits to faculty members and the educational mission of an academic medical center.     

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.