Retaining Faculty from Underrepresented Groups in Academic Medicine: Results from a Needs Assessment.

OBJECTIVES: Academic medical centers can improve the quality of care and address health inequities by recruiting and retaining faculty from underrepresented in medicine (URiM) groups; however, the retention of URiM faculty is a barrier to reaching equity-related goals because URiM faculty are less likely to remain in academia and be promoted compared with their peers. As such, the objective of this study was to determine factors that influence the retention of URiM faculty at large academic centers. METHODS: One-time, semistructured stay interviews were conducted to assess the experiences of URiM faculty at a large academic hospital in Boston, Massachusetts between October 2016 and April 2017. A qualitative researcher coded the transcripts and identified central themes. RESULTS: The participants (N = 17) were 65% Black/African American and 35% Hispanic/Latinx. The median number of years on faculty was 3 years (range 1-33). The themes identified through the stay interviews were grouped into three domains: areas of strength, challenges to advancement, and suggestions for improvement of support. Participants voiced leadership support in their development, the community of patients, URiM networking opportunities, and mentorship as strengths. The barriers to retention included the lack of transparency and trust in their work, a sense of tokenism, organizational management issues, and implicit biases. The suggested ways to improve support included the expanding of initiatives to include all members of groups URiM, continuing URiM faculty development programs, and increasing funding to support advancement. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscored the importance of supportive leadership, URiM-specific faculty development programs, networking opportunities, and the recognition of achievements as factors that influence the retention of faculty at a large academic medical center. In addition, participants highlighted the need for strong mentor networks and emphasizing sponsorship.

How to Launch and Continually Enhance an Effective Medical Campus Faculty Development Program: Steps for Implementation and Lessons Learned.

PURPOSE: Drawing on the decade of experience of Boston University Medical Campus' Faculty Development Office, this paper reports strategies used to launch and continually improve faculty development programming within an academic health sciences campus. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The authors explain the steps that Boston University Medical Campus took to institute their set of faculty development programs, including an overview of resources on how to periodically conduct needs assessments, engage key institutional stakeholders, design and evaluate an array of programming to meet the needs of a diverse faculty, and institute real-time program modifications. RESULTS: In a step-by-step guide, and by highlighting vital lessons learned, the authors describe a process by which biomedical educators can create and sustain a robust faculty development office within their own institutions. CONCLUSION: This paper identifies steps to launch and improve faculty development program. Faculty development programs should be expanded to support faculty in academic medical centers.

Content and outcomes of narrative medicine programmes: a systematic review of the literature through 2019.

OBJECTIVES: Narrative medicine (NM) incorporates stories into health sciences paradigms as fundamental aspects of the human experience. The aim of this systematic review is to answer the research question: how effective is the implementation and evaluation of NM programmes in academic medicine and health sciences? We documented objectives, content and evaluation outcomes of NM programming to provide recommendations for future narrative-based education. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of literature published through 2019 using five major databases: PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC and MedEdPORTAL. Eligible NM programming included textual analysis/close reading of published literature and creative/reflective writing. Qualifying participants comprised individuals from academic medicine and health sciences disciplines. We reviewed and categorised programme goals, content and evaluation activities to assess participant satisfaction and programme efficacy. Two members of the research team assessed the risk of bias, independently screening records via a two-round, iterative process to reach consensus on eligibility. RESULTS: Of 1569 original citations identified, we selected 55 unique programmes (described in 61 records). In all, 41 (75%) programmes reported a form of evaluation; evaluation methods lacked consistency. Twenty-two programmes used quantitative evaluation (13 well described), and 33 programmes used qualitative evaluation (27 well described). Well-described quantitative evaluations relied on 32 different measures (7 validated) and showed evidence of high participant satisfaction and pre-post improvement in competencies such as relationship-building, empathy, confidence/personal accomplishment, pedagogical skills and clinical skills. An average of 88.3% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the programme had positive outcomes. Qualitative evaluation identified high participant satisfaction and improvement in competencies such as relationship-building, empathy, perspective-taking/reflection, resilience and burnout detection/mitigation, confidence/personal accomplishment, narrative competence, and ethical inquiry. CONCLUSION: Evaluation suggests that NM programming leads to high participant satisfaction and positive outcomes across various competencies. We suggest best practices and innovative future directions for programme implementation and evaluation.

Advancing Professional Development Through a Community of Practice: the New England Network for Faculty Affairs.

INTRODUCTION: In an era of competing priorities, funding is increasingly restricted for offices of faculty affairs and development. Opportunities for professional staff to grow and network through attendance at national meetings and to share best practices are limited. We sought to describe a community of practice established to enhance the professional development of faculty affairs professionals and to document its impact. METHODS: We outlined the process of formation of the New England Network for Faculty Affairs (NENFA), reviewed the pedagogical approaches to professional development, and surveyed members to evaluate the impact of NENFA on their activities, professional network and their institutions. RESULTS: After a successful 2011 initial meeting, NENFA created an organizing committee and conducted a needs assessment among potential members. NENFA's charter, mission, goals, and structure were based on survey results. NENFA's regional community of practice grew to 31 institutions and held 10 meetings over 5 years. Meetings have examined a faculty development topic in depth using multiple learning formats to engage participants from academic medical centers and allied professions. Results from a 2015 member survey confirmed the value of NENFA. Multiple members documented changes in practice as a result of participating. DISCUSSION: NENFA has been sustained by volunteer leadership, collaboration, and the value that the group has brought to its members. We propose that a "community of practice" offers an effective model for collaborative learning among individuals at different institutions within a competitive health care environment. We recommend that the approach be replicated in other regions.

Mid-career faculty development in academic medicine: How does it impact faculty and institutional vitality?

PURPOSE: Faculty vitality is integral to the advancement of higher education. Strengthening vitality is particularly important for mid-career faculty, who represent the largest and most dissatisfied segment. The demands of academic medicine appear to be another factor that may put faculty at risk of attrition. To address these issues, we initiated a ten-month mid-career faculty development program. METHODS: A mixed-methods quasi-experimental design was used to evaluate the program's impact on faculty and institutional vitality. Pre/post surveys compared participants with a matched reference group. Quantitative data were augmented by interviews and focus groups with multiple stakeholders. RESULTS: At the program's conclusion, participants showed statistically significant gains in knowledge, skills, attitudes, and connectivity when compared to the referents. CONCLUSION: Given that mid-career faculty development in academic medicine has not been extensively studied, our evaluation provides a useful perspective to guide future initiatives aimed at enhancing the vitality and leadership capacity of mid-career faculty.