Characteristics of faculty mentoring in the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Future of Nursing Scholars Program.

BACKGROUND: To address the need for faculty scientists, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) provided support for an accelerated PhD program: Future of Nursing Scholars (FNS). PURPOSE: To describe the experience of faculty mentoring PhD students in the RWJF FNS program pursuing a 3-year accelerated PhD degree, including faculty members' support activities for students, time commitment, student productivity in manuscript dissemination, and challenges and opportunities for supporting students. METHODS: Surveys were sent to faculty mentors of FNS to understand mentoring activities, strategies used, and mentee productivity. FINDINGS: Of 93 faculty mentors, they reported most FNS students (n = 61, 65.6%) completed a manuscript format dissertation. FNS students required academic/dissertation mentoring, with frequent emotional support and positive reinforcement. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Mentors reported providing more frequent mentoring and spent more time mentoring FNS students than with other PhD students. Alignment of the student's research to that of the faculty mentor was identified as valuable.

Training the next generation of aging and cognitive health researchers.

Dementia is a growing public health concern, and African Americans and Latinos are disproportionately affected compared to White Americans. Improving cognitive health outcomes and reducing disparities requires a diverse, interdisciplinary workforce. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Healthy Brain Research Network (HBRN) Scholars Program trained racially/ethnically and gender-diverse scholars through mentored, collaborative research. Entry, exit, and alumni surveys and a Scholar Spotlight Series queried motivation, goals, acquired skills, accomplishments, program impact, and scholar perspectives. Scholars (n = 41) were majority female (n = 31, 75.6%), graduate students (n = 23, 56.1%), and racially/ethnically diverse (n = 20, 48.7%). Scholars primarily represented Medicine (n = 19, 46.3%) and Public Health (n = 12, 29.3%). Exiting scholars (n = 25) secured faculty/professional positions (n = 9, 36.0%), awards/funding (n = 12, 48.0%), and publications (n = 8, 32.0%). Alumni (n = 10) secured cognitive health-related positions/fellowships (n = 7, 70.0%). The HBRN Scholars Program is an adaptable model for other thematic networks to prepare scholars in collaborative skills critical for effective research and practice.

The impact of the Nurse Faculty Scholars program on schools of nursing.

BACKGROUND: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Nurse Faculty Scholars program was conceptualized as not only promoting the growth and development of early-career faculty but as enhancing the research infrastructure of scholars' schools of nursing. PURPOSE: At the completion of the scholars' three years of support, deans/directors were asked to provide feedback regarding the institutional impact of the scholars' participation in the program. METHODS: Phone interviews were conducted on the first five completed cohorts and a six-item questionnaire was developed to obtain some quantitative data. DISCUSSION: The program was viewed as having accelerated the scholars' leadership and scholarship, and their influence within the school/university and regionally/nationally. Deans/directors generally agreed that the scholars' experience helped build the school's research portfolio. CONCLUSION: Looking back on how the participating schools of nursing fared, one can say that the program's institutional expectations were achieved most of the time. The program helped scholars build their own reputations and that in turn had consequences for the school's standing as a whole. A number of components are described that can be replicated singly or in various combinations by schools/universities interested in adopting aspects of this program.

Building a mentoring network.

BACKGROUND: Mentoring has long been regarded as one of the key components of research training and faculty development. PURPOSE: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Nurse Faculty Scholars program purposely facilitated scholars' development of a mentoring network by providing each individual with three mentors: a school-of-nursing mentor (primary), a university-based non-nurse research mentor (research), and a nationally-recognized nurse leader at another university (national). METHOD: The Mentorship Effectiveness Scale was used to assess the effectiveness of each type of mentor in the first five completed cohorts. DISCUSSION: The ratings of mentorship effectiveness for all three kinds of mentors were generally high. Scholars valued most their mentors' support and advocacy; the biggest weakness in dealing with all mentors was accessibility. CONCLUSION: Even when one mentor proved a poor match, another mentor turned out to be an advocate and helpful, thus reaffirming the benefits of a mentoring network as opposed to only a single mentoring relationship. One lesson learned is the importance of preparing mentors for their role via written materials, in-person or phone orientations, and discussions at the annual meeting.

Hal Holman of Stanford.

Before age 35, Holman hit over 0.500 at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA); was recruited by professional baseball; led the Association of Interns and Medical Students and the International Union of Students in Denmark; had his passport confiscated; was stripped of a prestigious internship; shadowed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ; grilled before a Senate committee on subversive activities; made a major medical discovery; and was recruited to be the new Chief of Medicine at Stanford. Holman was involved in building a leading academic institution. He expanded what medical students and graduates learned and what they researched. Holman saw the collision course between the technological capacity to do more and the growing expectations of the public. Moreover, he anticipated the monetization of health care and how it would widen the gap between what we know and what we practice in health care. He reinvented himself in population health. In contrast to reductionist laboratory-based research, his work embraced complexity and made action researchable and research action-oriented. Some innovations did not survive as originally conceived, but their ethos became mainstream. These included evidence-based management, shared physician-patient decision-making, self-management, critical evaluation of medical technology and diagnostics, and chronic disease management. Through the rise of the twentieth century American biomedical medicine, medical education, and slow-motion health care delivery crises that still occur, Holman changed the debate in a time when the funding, the people, the technology, and the need made all things seem possible.

Evaluation of the Stanford Anesthesiology Faculty Teaching Scholars Program Using the Context, Input, Process, and Product Framework.

Background: Faculty development programs are essential to the educational mission of academic medical centers as they promote skill development and career advancement and should be regularly evaluated to determine opportunities for improvement. The context, input, process, and product (CIPP) framework evaluates all phases of a program and focuses on improvement and outcomes. The aim of this study was to use the CIPP framework to evaluate the Stanford Anesthesiology Faculty Teaching Scholars Program. Methods: Using the CIPP framework, a survey was developed for alumni (2007 to 2018) of the program, followed by structured interviews, and each interview was deductively coded to identify themes. Results: Twenty-six of the 54 (48% response rate) participants in the program completed the survey, with 23 completing their projects and 17 of those projects still part of the anesthesiology training program. Seventeen survey responders went on to educational leadership roles. Twenty-five of the 26 survey responders would recommend this program to their colleagues. Fifteen structured interviews were conducted. Using the CIPP framework, themes were identified for context (reason for participation, previous experience in medical education, and resident education impact), input (benefits/negatives of the lecture series, availability of resources, and adequacy of nonclinical time), process (resident participation, mentorship, and barriers to implementation), and product (project completion, education sustainability, positive/negative outcomes of the program, and suggestions for improvement). Conclusions: The CIPP framework was successfully used to evaluate the Teaching Scholars Program. Areas of improvement were identified, including changing the program for input (add education lectures customized to faculty interests) and process (formally designate an experienced mentor to faculty).

An Interprofessional Quality Improvement Training Program That Improves Educational and Quality Outcomes.

A key component of quality improvement (QI) is developing leaders who can implement QI projects collaboratively. A yearlong interprofessional, workplace-based, continuing professional development program devoted to QI trained 2 cohorts of teams (dyads or triads) to lead QI projects in their areas of work using Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology. Teams represented different specialties in both inpatient and outpatient settings. They spent 4 to 6 hours/week on seminars, online modules, bimonthly meetings with a QI coach, and QI project work. Evaluations conducted after each session included pre-post program QI self-efficacy and project milestones. Post-program participants reported higher levels of QI self-efficacy (mean = 3.47; SD = 0.39) compared with pre program (mean = 2.02, SD = 0.51; P = .03, Cohen's d = 3.19). Impact on clinical units was demonstrated, but varied. The coach was identified as a key factor for success. An interprofessional, workplace-based, continuing professional development program focused on QI increased QI knowledge and skills and translated to improvements in the clinical setting.

Does Having Been Mentored Affect Subsequent Mentoring?

BACKGROUND: How to be an effective mentor is typically not taught formally because good mentoring is thought to beget good mentoring, but there is little concrete data to support that connection. PURPOSE: Scholars in the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Nurse Faculty Scholars (NFS) program were surveyed to find out if the mentoring they received influenced their subsequent mentoring. METHOD: The qualities that form the Mentorship Effectiveness Scale were used to investigate if the experience changed scholars' views of mentoring; open-ended questions provided an opportunity for scholars to describe additional insights. RESULTS: Thirty-nine out of 93 scholars (42%) replied. Scholars were influenced by the mentoring they received: they were now more inclined to give guidance on professional issues, provide constructive critiques, suggest resources, acknowledge mentees' contributions, and challenge mentees to extend their abilities. Scholars' experiences made them more aware of the power of mentoring, provided them with insights into how they might do the same, convinced them that mentoring shouldn't be confined to one advisor, made them realize that one style of mentoring doesn't work for everyone, and improved their likelihood of using an individual development plan when they mentored. CONCLUSIONS: Effective mentoring does seem to beget effective mentoring because the interaction with mentors seems to leave a lasting impression and the perceived obligation to "pay it forward."

Characterization of investigators' approach to translational research: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how investigators approach their research programs along the translational research continuum. Many consider the translational continuum to be linear, with research beginning at the bench and concluding with research at the bedside or in the community. We aimed to understand if translational investigators approach and view their research in this fashion. METHODS: We conducted semistructured individual interviews with 16 graduates of the University of Pittsburgh's Multidisciplinary Clinical Research Scholars Program (KL2) in 2012. RESULTS: Our research revealed three characteristic models. The first model we called "linear" and represented the traditional approach. The second we called "holistic"; these investigators began with central research questions and sought to explore them in every direction of translation, not necessarily taking linear steps. The third model we called "technical"; in this model, investigators focused on a unique technology or methodology and applied it across multiple research contexts. CONCLUSION: This study found that there are multiple ways that translational investigators approach their research program. Better understanding of these models can help educators and mentors guide investigators so that they can be more productive in their clinical or translational research career.