Increasing departmental and college-wide faculty development opportunities through a teaching scholars program.

The University of Iowa Teaching Scholars Program was initiated in 1999 at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine (CCOM) with the overall goal of promoting leadership in faculty development related to teaching skills. Specific goals of this program are (1) to promote the development of a cadre of faculty members who have the skills to implement faculty development within their departments and the CCOM; (2) to increase departmental involvement in faculty development efforts; (3) to increase resources available for dissemination of college-wide faculty development efforts; and (4) to acknowledge the extra effort faculty put into developing their skills and knowledge in medical education and in providing continuing education to their faculty colleagues. All clinical and basic science departments in the CCOM are given the opportunity to have a faculty member participate in the program. Unlike other programs reported in the literature, competitive decisions for program participation are made at the departmental level. The three-year program combines monthly meetings and other activities to train faculty to provide faculty development in teaching skills. Each scholar develops and implements a project to address departmental faculty development needs as well as needs of other departments in the CCOM. To date (2006), 50 faculty members from 19 different departments have participated in the program with an average of 12 scholars per class. The program has resulted in a substantial increase in departmental and college-wide faculty development programming and has had a positive impact on individual scholars' teaching skills and leadership roles.     

A computerized faculty time-management system in an academic family medicine department.

The authors describe the development, implementation, and evaluation of a computerized faculty time-management system (FTMS) in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. The FTMS is presented as an integrated set of computerized spreadsheets used annually to allocate faculty time across all mission activities of the department. It was first implemented in 1996 and has been continuously developed since then. An iterative approach has been used to gain consensus among faculty about time resources needed for various tasks of all missions of the department. These time-resource assumptions are used in the computerized system. Faculty time is allocated annually by the department vice chair in negotiation with individual faculty, making sure that the activities planned do not exceed the work time each faculty member has available for the year. During this process, faculty preferences are balanced against department aggregate needs to meet mission commitments and obligations. The authors describe how the computerized FTMS is used for faculty time management and career development, department planning, budget planning, clinical scheduling, and mission cost accounting. They also describe barriers and potential abuses and the challenge of building an organizational culture willing to discuss faculty time openly and committed to developing a system perceived as fair and accurate. The spreadsheet file is available free from the authors for use in other departments.     

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.     

Intestinal helminthiasis in school children in Haiti in 2002

A survey on intestinal helminths in school children was conducted in Haiti in 2002. This first nationwide study involving the entire country was stratified by department according to urban and rural zones using the cluster method. Focusing on elementary school children (n=5792; age range 3 to 20 years), it involved 26 urban and 49 rural schools randomly selected. Stools were preserved in formalin and examined by the Ritchie technique. Thirty-four per cent of stools (1981/5792) tested positive for intestinal helminths with the following parasites identified: Ascaris lumbricoides (27.3%), Trichuris trichiura (7.3%), Necator americanus (3.8%), Hymenolepsis nana (2%), Taenia sp. (0.3%) and Strongyloides stercoralis (0.2%). The helminth prevalence was higher in rural (38.4%) compared to urban areas (30%). There was no significant difference in prevalence by sex and age. The importance of geohelminths changed from one department to another with the highest prevalence found in the Southern department of Grande Anse (73.7%) and the lowest prevalence in the Center department (20.6%). Five out of the country's nine departments had a similar prevalence varying from 25.5% to 28.2%. Intestinal helminthic polyparasitism was observed in a percentage of infested school children comprise between 3.4% and 28.6% according in relation to the geographical area. A program to fight against geohelminths in school children should be initiated as a public health priority. Albendazole is the drug of choice. Frequency of drug distribution should be based on the prevalence of geohelminths in each department.     

A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity.

PURPOSE: Although numerous characteristics impact faculty research productivity, and although researchers have suggested comprehensive theoretical models to explain the relationship between these characteristics and levels of faculty research productivity, few studies have assessed these models. This study tests the ability of the Bland et al. (2002) model-based on individual, institutional, and leadership variables influencing faculty research productivity-to explain individual and group (department) research productivity within the context of a large medical school. METHOD: This study used data from a University of Minnesota Medical School-Twin Cities vitality survey conducted in 2000 that had a response rate of 76% (n = 465 faculty). A statistical software package was used to conduct t tests, logistic regressions, and multiple regressions on these data. RESULTS: The validity of faculty, department, and leadership characteristics identified in the Bland et al. (2002) model were confirmed as necessary for high levels of research productivity. Faculty productivity was influenced more by individual and institutional characteristics; group productivity was more affected by institutional and leadership characteristics. CONCLUSION: The characteristics and groupings (individual, institutional, and leadership) in the Bland et al. (2002) model predict faculty research productivity. Research productivity is influenced by the interaction of the three broad groupings, and it is the dynamic interplay of individual and institutional characteristics, supplemented with effective leadership, that determines the productivity of individuals and departments.     

Psychology in a medical school: A personal account of a department's 35-year history

In 1911 John Broadus Watson and Shepard Ivory Franz proposed that the teaching of psychology was as essential to the education of medical students as were anatomy, pharmacology, surgery, and the other basic and clinical sciences. Today, our country's 126 medical schools each employ an average of some 35 full-time faculty psychologists; 6 have established full-fledged departments of psychology that are comparable (administratively) to departments that include faculty from the more traditional basic and clinical sciences. Thirty-five years ago (in 1957) the University of Oregon Medical School was the first medical school to create a department of Medical Psychology. The present writer was hired that year to chair that newly established department and has served continuously in that capacity since then. This Presidential Address to the APA Division of the History of Psychology offers the writer's personal perspective on the history and development of that department during its first 35 years of existence.     

A classification of developmental activities of academic family medicine supported by federal grants

Substantial funds have been awarded to academic departments of family medicine through the federal Establishment of Departments of Family Medicine grants program, initiated in 1980 under the Public Health Service Act. In 1989 the authors analyzed the successful grant applications in a sample of 61 institutions variously funded or re-funded for the grant cycles from 1980 through 1986 in order to classify the supported developmental activities. Three dimensions for explicating this activity emerged: (1) the functional area of the activity (e.g., curricular development); (2) the objectives of the activity (e.g., improving relevance of instruction); and (3) the strategies to be used to attain the objectives (e.g., addition of specialized faculty). This classification scheme provides a tentative but useful framework for characterizing departmental development.     

Status of gross anatomy in the U.S. and Canada: Dilemma for the 21st century

As a component of a recent academic review, the Department of Anatomy and Neurosciences faculty at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, Texas, developed a questionnaire designed to compare the curricula, direction, and challenges of their department with the approximately 140 anatomy departments in the U. S. and Canada. The response was overwhelming in that over 80% of the schools returned a completed questionnaire. One of the areas of interest revealed by this survey was a growing concern over significant changes in both medical school curricula and the future of anatomy departments. Most departments still used traditional lectures to present course material and the majority of the scheduled contact hours were in the dissection laboratory; however, other teaching formats, such as case studies and small group discussions, accounted for significantly more of the teaching effort. Nearly 20% of the schools were making major modifications in their teaching methods. The general trend was to include more integrated, problem-based learning and computer-assisted teaching while reducing overall content, didactic lectures, and rote memorization. The role and need for traditionally trained gross anatomists in medical education appeared to be diminishing as curricular reform moved toward more student-directed, faculty-facilitated programs. Concurrently, the recruitment and career development of gross anatomy faculty appeared to be influenced more by funding status than by academic training or teaching experience, as most departmental chairman were willing to hire non-anatomists and “train” them to assume an often reduced teaching load in gross anatomy courses. In addition, fewer graduate students were being trained in classical gross anatomy, a trend that better suited the emerging student-directed medical school curricula. The reduction in classically trained anatomists also appeared to reflect the widespread practice whereby anatomy faculty were rewarded far more for research than for teaching. Although the continued inclusion of gross anatomy in medical education appeared to be assured, its traditional mode of presentation and academic prominence will likely change by the turn of the century. © 1994 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

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.     

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 metrics process: Baylor's development of a "report card" for faculty and departments.

In 1996, Baylor College of Medicine began the first year of its "metrics process," collecting, analyzing, and reporting data on the performance of each individual faculty member and each department in achieving the school's missions of education, patient care, research, service, and finance. This article is a report of the first two years of the process, with updates about the 1999 process, future plans, and lessons learned. The primary goal of the metrics process is to provide meaningful data to assess and improve the performance of faculty and departments across all missions. The authors (1) indicate the categories chosen, within each mission of the school, for measuring faculty time and effort (e.g., patient care, with or without learners) and state the measures chosen (e.g., percentage of time); (2) describe the development of questionnaires in 1996 and 1997 to acquire data from faculty, in the chosen categories and measures, about the time and effort they spent; and (3) report highlights of the resulting departmental data that were gathered in 1997. Among the key categories and units of measure chosen for measuring faculty (and departmental) time and effort are research grant dollars (total and per research full-time equivalent, or FTE); basic research grant dollars per square foot of laboratory space; percentage of faculty who spend at least 50% of their time in research who are National Institutes of Health principal investigators; numbers of inpatient and outpatient visits per evaluation and management FTE; total relative value units (RVUs) per patient-care FTE; patient-care income/RVU and expense/RVU for total faculty and support staff; percentage of faculty with at least one leadership position in a state or national organization; and income in excess of expense, by mission (e.g., patient care). Results of comparing data from the first two years of the metrics process demonstrate marked improvements in performance for most research measures (i.e., items of measurement agreed upon for the metrics process). The process is continually being redeveloped; the ultimate challenge is to place the objective measurements in a context where less objective qualities (e.g., innovation) also figure importantly in the evaluation and fostering of excellence. The metrics process is providing important management data, encouraging significant discussions among faculty and chairs about performance and accountability, and aiding greatly in departmental goal-setting and ultimately in determining the overall performance of the school.     

Expanding the view of scholarship: introduction.

The Association of American Medical Colleges' Council of Academic Societies (CAS) has a long-standing interest in scholarship as it relates to research, education, and service, the traditional definition of the activities of medical school. The work of Ernest Boyer and Charles Glassick is highly respected for redefining scholarship and conceiving how scholarship as thus defined can be assessed. Because their ideas have been applied in other areas of the academy but not widely in medical faculties, the CAS Task Force on Scholarship collected a special set of papers on Boyer's four areas of scholarship as applied to medical school, including case studies and the perspective from the university. The four areas of scholarship defined by Boyer and Glassick are the scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of application, and the scholarship of teaching. The scholarship of discovery-research-has for decades been the primary focus for promotion and tenure for medical school faculty, even though the faculty also had major and critical activities in the other areas of scholarship. The CAS hopes that the ideas put forth in this special theme issue will produce a continuing dialogue as faculty and administrators at medical schools reflect on the value of these different forms of scholarship, their application by medical school faculty, and their contributions to the individual missions of each medical school and teaching hospital. In addition, these articles will stimulate continuing discussions that will definite equitable methods for the continued assessment of the scholarly accomplishments of medical school faculty.     

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.     

How do medical schools use measurement systems to track faculty activity and productivity in teaching?

The authors describe their findings from a study that (1) identified 41 medical schools or medical school departments that used metric systems to quantify faculty activity and productivity in teaching and (2) analyzed the purposes and progress of those systems. Among the reasons articulated for developing these systems, the most common was to identify a "rational" method for distributing funds to departments. More generally, institutions wanted to emphasize the importance of the school's educational mission. The schools varied in the types of information they tracked, ranging from a selective focus on medical school education to a comprehensive assessment of teaching activity and educational administration, committee work, and advising. Schools were almost evenly split between those that used a relative-value-unit method of tracking activity and those that used a contact-hour method. This study also identified six challenges that the institutions encountered with these metric systems: (1) the lack of a culture of data in management; (2) skepticism of faculty and chairs; (3) the misguided search for one perfect metric; (4) the expectation that a metric system will erase ambiguity regarding faculty teaching contributions; (5) the lack of, and difficulty with developing, measures of quality; and (6) the tendency to become overly complex. Because of the concern about the teaching mission at medical schools, the number of institutions developing educational metric systems will likely increase in the coming years. By documenting and accounting financially for teaching, medical schools can ensure that the educational mission is valued and appropriately supported.     

Current issues facing academic surgery departments: stakeholders' views.

PURPOSE: To determine the issues important to stakeholders in today's academic surgery departments, to query key stakeholders about possible solutions, and to investigate the correlation of organizational alignment among department stakeholders with department performance. METHOD: Between July 2003 and October 2005, the author designed, piloted and carried out a study in which he interviewed key stakeholders-deans, chief executive officers/chief financial officers (CEOs/CFOs) of hospitals and health system practice plans, surgery department chairs, and surgery department members-from 12 randomly selected academic surgery departments. Important issues and solutions were identified and comparisons among stakeholder groups performed. Alignment was evaluated both among and within groups and organizations. RESULTS: Stakeholders (11 deans, 9 CEO/CFOs, 12 department chairs, 10 department faculty members) identified 12 issues and offered potential solutions and responses important to today's academic surgery department. One issue identified was promotion and tenure; nearly all stakeholders stated that its current form needed to be changed. Alignment analysis was incomplete because of inconsistent outcomes reporting. CONCLUSIONS: The uniformity of issues facing academic surgery departments and the similarity of the solutions proposed to address these issues (both study findings) suggest a need to change the paradigm and think "outside the box." The study findings suggest that academic surgery departments, under strong leaders, must establish a unified culture, define a compelling vision, articulate a clear mission, and develop fully accepted values to be successful. The study findings could be useful in designing and developing academic surgery departments in today's health care environment.     

Manpower needs and supply in academic pathology

A survey of manpower supply and need in academic pathology departments was conducted by the Joint Task Force on Pathology Manpower of the College of American Pathologists, the American Society of Clinical Pathologists, and the Association of Pathology Chairmen by means of questionnaires distributed to chairmen and faculty of all departments of pathology and laboratory medicine in the United States. Of the 136 departments, responses were obtained from 131 (96%) chairmen and from 1,561 (45%) faculty members. The current total need for faculty members (funded vacant positions) is 272, and the projected aggregate need over the next five years is 693 members for new and replacement positions. The greatest needs are for research MD pathologists and surgical pathologists, followed by autopsy and chemical pathologists. Based on the estimate of current pathology trainees planning academic careers, there is a strong indication that the projected supply of MD pathologists is significantly less than the anticipated demand.     

The difficulty of sustaining curricular reforms: a study of "drift" at one school.

In 1997, five years after a major curricular reform at the University of Michigan Medical School, the authors revisited the Goals for Medical Education (written by faculty to guide the reform process) to identify factors that had facilitated or hindered their achievement. By reviewing responses to identical questionnaires circulated to faculty in 1993 and again in 1997, they learned that considerably more lectures were being used to deliver curricular content in the first-year curriculum than the faculty thought was ideal, and that less social science, humanities, and ethics material was being presented in the first year than the faculty thought was ideal. The authors also learned that consensus between faculty basic scientists and faculty clinicians about the content that would make up an ideal first-year curriculum had diverged since adoption of the new curriculum. Movement toward decreasing the amounts of social sciences, humanities, and ethics in the first year of medical school was particularly pronounced among the basic scientists, who felt this material was being taught prematurely and at the expense of essential basic science content. In contrast, by 1997 much closer agreement had developed between the two groups regarding time they would allocate for lectures; this agreement unfortunately reflected a stagnation in the adoption of active learning methods. Movement toward increasing the amount of time for lectures in the first-year curriculum was particularly pronounced among the clinicians, who reported feeling more and more pressured to bring in clinical revenues. Based on faculty comments and the school's experience with centralized governance and centralized funding, the authors propose a direct linkage between institutional funding to departments and the teaching effort of faculty in the departments, and sufficient, centralized funding to relieve pressure on faculty and to foster educational creativity. They maintain that this may be the most effective way to guarantee ongoing innovation, support interdisciplinary teaching, and subsequently move the curriculum and teachers completely away from content that is isolated within traditional department structures. At the same time they acknowledge that changing faculty attitudes presents a challenge.     

Implementing a comprehensive relative-value-based incentive plan in an academic family medicine department.

The authors describe the implementation and first three years (1997-1999) of a department-wide incentive plan of the Department of Family Medicine at the State University of New York at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences. By using a consensus approach, a representative elected committee designed a clinical relative value unit (explained in detail) that could be translated to equally value and reward faculty efforts in patient care, education, and research and which allowed the department to avoid the imposition of a model that could have undervalued scholarship and teaching. By 1999, the plan's goal of eight patient-care-equivalent points per four-hour session had been exceeded for pure clinical care. Clearly, only a small financial incentive was necessary (in 1999, an incentive pool of 4% of providers' gross salary) to motivate the faculty to be more productive and to self-report their efforts. Long-term productivity for pure clinical care rose from 9.8 points per session in 1997 to 10.4 in 1999. Of the mean total of 3,980 points for the year 1999, the contribution from teaching was 1,146, or 29%, compared with 25% in 1997. For scholarship, the number of points was 775, or 20%, in 1999, compared with 11% in 1997. The authors describe modifications to the original plan (e.g., integration of quality measures) that the department's experience has fostered. Problems encountered included the lack of accurate and timely billing information from the associated teaching hospitals, the inherent problems of self-reported information, difficulties of gaining buy-in from the faculty, and inherent risks of a pay-for-performance approach. But the authors conclude that the plan is fulfilling its goal of effectively and fairly quantifying all areas of faculty effort, and is also helping the department to more effectively demonstrate clinical productivity in negotiations with teaching hospitals.     

Academic manpower survey of 1990: I. Descriptors of departments of pathology in the United States (from the Joint Task Force on Pathology Manpower ASCP/CAP/APC)

A survey of chairmen of United States departments of pathology (97% response rate) augmented with data from the Association of American Medical Colleges shows that roughly two thirds (65%) of departmental faculty are physicians, the great majority of whom are pathologists. Most of the remainder are persons with solely the PhD degree (26.4% of faculty). The composition of departments of pathology in terms of age, gender, ethnic origin, academic rank, and tenure status is also reported. In contrast to a comparable survey performed 5 years previously, the present report shows that in 1989, departments of pathology contained (1) 20.6% more faculty positions, (2) a greater proportion of faculty members with a PhD degree, (3) greater numbers of open positions, and (4) a probable increase in the proportion of faculty that are female and that are of an ethnic minority.