The CARE Inventory: A Self-Reflective, Behavior-Based Instrument to Guide Professional Development and Mentorship of Academic Faculty.

Introduction: Traditional needs assessments often rely on self-reported skill levels. To gather more objective and growth-focused data, we developed a behavior-based inventory to measure perceived faculty competence and desired areas for growth in four common domains of academic medicine: clinical, administrative/leadership, research, and education (CARE). Methods: Competencies in teaching, research, and professional development and leadership noted in the literature were used as the foundation of our instrument. Clinical service topics were added, and questions were vetted with the executive committee of our faculty development center. A behavior-based inventory was developed to enhance self-reporting of competency. The instrument was piloted with faculty at an external institution and revisions made prior to data collection. Results: In May 2016, the CARE Inventory was sent to all full-time faculty members in the Ohio State University College of Medicine (n = ∼1,800). We received 350 responses (20% response rate). Individual reports were generated and sent to the faculty member and his/her identified mentor for individual professional development. Summary data were used in aggregate for professional development program planning. Discussion: Anchoring measurement to current and desired future behavior allows for more self-reflective and growth-oriented assessment for individuals, and results can inform tactical faculty development by both individual and program. We believe this is a scalable and generalizable instrument other academic medical and health sciences programs could use both as a needs assessment tool for program planning and for individualized development plans with faculty and their mentors.

A review of trends in attrition rates for surgical faculty: a case for a sustainable retention strategy to cope with demographic and economic realities.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to compare trends in retention of academic surgeons by reviewing surgical faculty attrition rates (leaving academic surgery for any reason) of 3 cohorts at 5-year intervals between 1996 and 2011. STUDY DESIGN: The Association of American Medical Colleges' Faculty Administrative Management On-Line User System database was queried for a retention report of all tenure/clinical track full-time MD faculty within our academic medical center on July 1, 1996 (group 1), July 1, 2001 (group 2), and July 1, 2006 (group 3). Retention was tracked for 5 years post snapshot. The individual 5-year cohort attrition rates (observed frequencies) were compared with combined attrition rates for all 3 groups (expected frequencies). RESULTS: Overall, attrition trends for groups 2 (lower) and 3 (higher) were significantly different than the trends for all groups combined. Minorities and professors at the full or associate rank in group 3 contributed to this difference. Faculty in group 3 leaving our academic medical center were significantly more likely to transition into nonacademic practice compared with the other 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Greater attrition in the last 5-year cohort, despite the increase in faculty positions, is worrisome. A continuous retention life cycle is critical if academic medical centers hope to compete for talent. Retention planning should include on-boarding programs for enculturation, monitoring of professional satisfaction, formalized mentoring of younger surgeons, retaining academic couples and a part-time workforce, leadership and talent management, exit interviews, and competitive financial packages.