Randomized controlled trial of a group peer mentoring model for U.S. academic medicine research faculty.

Introduction: Midcareer is a critical transition point for biomedical research faculty and a common dropout point from an NIH-funded career. We report a study to assess the efficacy of a group peer mentoring program for diverse biomedical researchers in academic medicine, seeking to improve vitality, career advancement, and cross-cultural competence. Methods: We conducted a stratified randomized controlled trial with a waitlist control group involving 40 purposefully diverse early midcareer research faculty from 16 states who had a first-time NIH R01 (or equivalent) award, a K training grant, or a similar major grant. The yearlong intervention (2 to 3 days quarterly) consisted of facilitated, structured, group peer mentoring. Main study aims were to enhance faculty vitality, self-efficacy in achieving research success, career advancement, mentoring others, and cultural awareness and appreciation of diversity in the workplace. Results: Compared to the control group, the intervention group's increased vitality did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.20), but perceived change in vitality was 1.47 standard deviations higher (D = 1.47, P = 0.03). Self-efficacy for career advancement was higher in the intervention group (D = 0.41, P = 0.05) as was self-efficacy for research (D = 0.57, P = 0.02). The intervention group also valued diversity higher (D = 0.46, P = 0.02), had higher cognitive empathy (D = 0.85, P = 0.03), higher anti-sexism/racism skills (D = 0.71, P = 0.01), and higher self-efficacy in mentoring others (D = 1.14, P = 0.007). Conclusions: The mentoring intervention resulted in meaningful change in important dimensions and skills among a national sample of diverse early midcareer biomedical faculty. This mentoring program holds promise for addressing the urgencies of sustaining faculty vitality and cross-cultural competence.

Are researchers in academic medicine flourishing? A survey of midcareer Ph.D. and physician investigators.

Introduction: Midcareer research faculty are a vital part of the advancement of science in U.S. medical schools, but there are troubling trends in recruitment, retention, and burnout rates. Methods: The primary sampling frame for this online survey was recipients of a single R01 or equivalent and/or K-award from 2013 to 2019. Inclusion criteria were 3-14 years at a U.S. medical school and rank of associate professor or two or more years as assistant professor. Forty physician investigators and Ph.D. scientists volunteered for a faculty development program, and 106 were propensity-matched controls. Survey items covered self-efficacy in career, research, work-life; vitality/burnout; relationships, inclusion, trust; diversity; and intention to leave academic medicine. Results: The majority (52%) reported receiving poor mentoring; 40% experienced high burnout and 41% low vitality, which, in turn, predicted leaving intention (P < 0.0005). Women were more likely to report high burnout (P = 0.01) and low self-efficacy managing work and personal life (P = 0.01) and to be seriously considering leaving academic medicine than men (P = 0.003). Mentoring quality (P < 0.0005) and poor relationships, inclusion, and trust (P < 0.0005) predicted leaving intention. Non-underrepresented men were very likely to report low identity self-awareness (65%) and valuing differences (24%) versus underrepresented men (25% and 0%; P < 0.0005). Ph.D.s had lower career advancement self-efficacy than M.D.s (P < .0005). Conclusions: Midcareer Ph.D. and physician investigators faced significant career challenges. Experiences diverged by underrepresentation, gender, and degree. Poor quality mentoring was an issue for most. Effective mentoring could address the concerns of this vital component of the biomedical workforce.

Nursing Home Palliative Care During the Pandemic: Directions for the Future.

Background and Objectives: Palliative care addresses physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual suffering that accompanies serious illness. Emphasis on symptom management and goals of care is especially valuable for seriously ill nursing home residents. We investigated barriers to nursing home palliative care provision highlighted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the solutions nursing home staff used to provide care in the face of those barriers. Research Design and Methods: For this descriptive qualitative study, seven Massachusetts nursing home directors of nursing were interviewed remotely about palliative care provision before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Before the pandemic, palliative care was delivered primarily by nursing home staff depending on formal and informal consultations from palliative care specialists affiliated with hospice providers. When COVID-19 lockdowns precluded these consultations, nursing staff did their best to provide palliative care, but were often overwhelmed by shortfalls in resources, resident decline brought on by isolation and COVID-19 itself, and a sense that their expertise was lacking. Advance care planning conversations focused on hospitalization decisions and options for care given resource constraints. Nevertheless, nursing staff discovered previously untapped capacity to provide palliative care on-site as part of standard care, building trust of residents and families. Discussion and Implications: Nursing staff rose to the palliative care challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic, albeit with great effort. Consistent with prepandemic analysis, we conclude that nursing home payment and quality standards should support development of in-house staff capacity to deliver palliative care while expanding access to the formal consultations and family involvement that were restricted by the pandemic. Future research should be directed to evaluating initiatives that pursue these aims.