Group peer mentoring to improve faculty connections and enhance mentoring networks.

BACKGROUND: Difficulty finding mentors and forging connections in academic departments can be challenging and became even more so when the COVID-19 pandemic reduced opportunities for informal networking. Even as restrictions on in-person meetings eased, many faculty preferred meetings to remain virtual. Because some of the most powerful predictors of faculty vitality are positive professional relationships and feelings of inclusion and belonging to an institution, attending to faculty needs in this area is important to mitigate undesired lingering consequences. APPROACH: We created structured peer mentoring groups for our department's physicians and psychologists that meet virtually. Groups span career stages, academic appointments and clinical interests. The purpose was to establish a deeper culture of mentoring, increase feelings of connection to a supportive community within the department, facilitate career planning and enhance the development of skills necessary in academic medicine such as teaching skills, scholarly productivity and personal wellness. EVALUATION: A survey conducted after the first year of the programme was completed by 70% of eligible faculty (31/45). Ninety-six percent felt the programme had created an inclusive and appreciative culture, 86% met faculty members they had never met before and 79% sought mentoring advice from a colleague they would not usually have interacted with in that manner. All participants appreciated hearing their colleagues' perspectives on topics they do not typically discuss. IMPLICATIONS: Departmentally based group peer mentoring that spans career stages and interests can facilitate faculty connections and enhance a supportive culture of mentorship.

Creating a Resident Research Track in Synergy With the Rehabilitation Medicine Scientist Training Program.

ABSTRACT: Physician scientists play an important role in the translation of research findings to patient care; however, their training faces numerous challenges. Residency research track programs represent an opportunity to facilitate the training of future physician scientists in physical medicine and rehabilitation, although optimal program organization and long-term outcomes remain unknown. The Rehabilitation Medicine Scientist Training Program is a National Institutes of Health-funded program aimed at addressing the shortage of physician researchers in the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation by providing instruction, mentorship, and networking opportunities for a successful research career. While the opportunities provided through the Rehabilitation Medicine Scientist Training Program provide critical education and guidance at a national level, trainees are most successful with availability of strong local support and mentorship. The purpose of this article was to present a realistic and easily applicable structure for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency research track that can be used in concert with the Rehabilitation Medicine Scientist Training Program.

Improving the Assessment of Resident Competency: Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Milestones 2.0.

ABSTRACT: In 2015, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education published the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Milestones 1.0 as part of the Next Accreditation System. This was the culmination of more than 20 yrs of work on the part of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education to improve graduate medical education competency assessments. The six core competencies were patient care, medical knowledge, systems-based practice, practice-based learning and improvement, professionalism, and interpersonal and communication skills. While providing a good foundation for resident assessment, the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Milestones 1.0 was not without faults. With input from program directors, national organizations, and the public, the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Milestones 2.0 strives to further advance resident assessment, providing improvements through the integration of the harmonized Milestones and the addition of a supplemental guide.

Autonomic dysreflexia: incidence in persons with neurologically complete and incomplete tetraplegia.

BACKGROUND: Autonomic dysreflexia (AD) is a common problem in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) above the T6 neurologic level and may cause serious medical complications if untreated. Previous studies have focused on patients with complete SCI. DESIGN: Prospective analysis of a historic cohort. A retrospective review of a subset of the cohort also was performed. OBJECTIVES: To examine the percentage of persons with complete and incomplete tetraplegia who developed AD and determine whether patients with incomplete injuries were at risk for developing AD; and to study the onset of AD and determine the time period that patients are at risk for developing AD. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively on 332 patients with tetraplegia to determine American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) impairment score, neurologic level, presence of AD, and length of hospital stay. The charts of 34 patients who developed AD were then reviewed retrospectively for further data such as onset and contributing factors of AD. Also obtained were data from the National SCI Statistical Center database for comparison of percentage of patients with complete and incomplete injuries who developed AD. RESULTS: Patients with motor-complete SCI (ASIA A or ASIA B) had a higher percentage of AD (P = 0.001) during their initial hospitalization than did patients with motor-incomplete SCI. However, patients with motor-incomplete injuries also were at risk for developing AD. The onset of AD occurred between 1 and 6 months after injury. CONCLUSION: Patients with incomplete tetraplegia are at risk for developing AD. As hospital lengths of stay decrease, patients may be discharged before onset of symptoms. Patient and family education about AD is, therefore, increasingly important for all patients with tetraplegia.