- Email: [email protected]
Evaluation of a Mentoring Program for New Pediatric Department Chairs
Evaluation of a Mentoring Program for New Pediatric Department Chairs Robert W. Wilmott, MD1, Jon S. Abramson, MD2, H. Dele Davies, MD3, Marianne E. Felice, MD4, Bonita Stanton, MD5, and Richard F. Jacobs, MD6
I
n 2007 the Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs (AMSPDC) became concerned about the high turnover rate of pediatric department chairs (PDC). In a study of 123 departments, there was a mean annual turnover rate of 17%,1 and the rate was particularly high among new and female PDC. A later study showed that there were very high rates of dissatisfaction and high “burnout” scores among PDC.2 To address this concern, AMSPDC developed a New Chair’s Committee charged with developing a formal mentoring program specifically for new PDC. Mentoring of medical school faculty has been widely recommended and shown to increase career growth and satisfaction, and increase faculty retention,3,4 yet there is very little literature about mentoring programs for new academic department chairs. The short-term goal of mentoring was to assist new PDC to acquire the skills to oversee the programs within their department, and the long-term goal was to improve rates of retention. The current survey was performed to evaluate the performance of the program as perceived by the proteges and mentors after 6 years of operation.
gram, and 55 accepted. Fourteen declined, usually because they had prior experience of being a PDC, or they had access to well-established mentoring programs at their university. Seven did not respond to 2 invitations. A questionnaire was administered to the proteges (www. surveymonkey.com) in February 2011 (16/17 responded), March 2012 (7/7 responded), and December 2014 (14/20 responded); 11 proteges were not surveyed because their length of participation in the program was short. The survey request was sent to the PDC proteges by e-mail and responses were anonymous; follow-up e-mail requests were sent to obtain a response rate of 82%. A similar survey was administered to the mentors in March 2012 (22/24 responded), and in December 2014 (14/18) responded. They were asked to complete a questionnaire for each mentoring relationship because some had had several proteges. The participants did not respond to every question so the total item response (N) was less than the maximum possible value. The results are summarized as N (%). Some percentage values did not sum to 100 because of rounding.
Methods
Eighty-four percent of proteges and 92% of mentors reported that the protege/mentor were a good match (Figure). The majority of proteges reported regular contact with their mentors, and 68% were satisfied with the frequency of meetings; 32% would have liked more meetings. Seventyeight percent of proteges stated that telephone meetings were an effective way to stay in contact; the main barrier reported was difficulty with scheduling. Nine (24%) had identified an institutional site visit as a goal and 8 had been completed. All proteges who had participated in a site visit reported that it was very/extremely valuable. Seventy-three percent of proteges reported that their mentor provided positive and critical feedback, and 95% rated communication as good or excellent. None of the proteges
PDC in their first year of appointment were matched with more experienced PDC (>5 years) based on medical center characteristics such as research intensity, size, state vs private, and personal preferences. We tried to also match mentor/ mentee pairs by sex. Proteges were able to request specific mentors, and these requests usually could be honored. When the program was initiated in January 2008, PDC appointed since January 2007 were invited to participate. Components of the program were meetings at the annual AMSPDC meeting and other national conferences, regular telephone calls, and site visits to the new chair’s medical center where the mentor met with medical school and hospital leadership; reverse site visits were also an option. AMSPDC allotted funding for these site visits as part of its annual budget and also offered a workshop for new PDC every 3 years at its annual meeting. From January 2008 to December 2014, 92 new PDC were appointed. Seventy-six were invited to participate in the pro-
AMSPDC PDC
Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs Pediatric department chairs
Results
From the 1Department of Pediatrics, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; 2Department of Pediatrics, Wake Forest School of Medicine, WinstonSalem, NC; 3Department of Pediatrics, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE; 4Department of Pediatrics, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA; 5Department of Pediatrics, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI; and 6Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR The mentoring program received funding from The Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. 0022-3476//$ - see front matter. Copyright ª 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2015.06.069
787
THE JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
www.jpeds.com
Vol. 167, No. 4 lum/guidelines, scheduling challenges, and problems created by differences in policies between institutions.
Discussion
ge s and mentors to a questionFigure. Responses of prote naire concerning the value of a new mentoring program for new PDC. The number of observations that did not contain missing or not applicable values is shown inside the base of each bar.
or mentors believed that there had been a breach of confidentiality. When asked whether they would recommend the program to others, 26 (70%) proteges responded yes, 6 (16%) maybe, 2 (5%) no, and 3 (8%) did not answer the question. The majority of mentors reported that their participation was rewarding (22 excellent, 8 good, 2 fair, 4 not available). Thirty-three percent of proteges felt the mentoring had reached a point where it was no longer necessary; however, 67% have continued to meet, some of them for several years. Strengths of the partnership reported were advice from a senior trusted colleague, insights from a different perspective, a positive supportive relationship, and experience of the mentor coupled with openness to sharing ideas. Reported opportunities for improvement included a lack of curricu-
788
This initial evaluation of a mentoring program for new PDC provided encouraging results. In general, the program achieved its short-term goals although there were opportunities for improvement by creation of a curriculum, sending out reminder messages, encouragement of more institutional site visits, and improved identification of new PDC. These will be addressed in future roll-outs of the program. It is difficult to obtain objective data concerning any possible effect on the high turnover of new PDC as there are many contributing factors to the turnover rate. However, AMSPDC will be performing another study soon to assess job satisfaction, rates of retention, and reasons for stepping down. It is hoped that the results will show improvement in turnover, length of tenure, and job satisfaction compared with earlier surveys.1 n We thank Carolyn Whitton Fingerman, PMP, and Linda Kozlowski (Degnon Associates) for assistance with the mentoring program and the surveys. Reprint requests: Robert W. Wilmott, MD, Department of Pediatrics, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, SSM Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center, 1465 South Grand Blvd, St. Louis, MO 63104. E-mail: [email protected]
References 1. Stapleton FB, Jones D, Fiser DH. Leadership trends in academic pediatric departments. Pediatrics 2005;116:342-4. 2. McPhillips HA, Stanton B, Zuckerman B, Stapleton FB. Role of a pediatric department chair: factors leading to satisfaction and burnout. J Pediatr 2007;151:425-30. 3. Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A. Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. JAMA 2006;296:1103-15. 4. Wingard DL, Garman KA, Reznik V. Facilitating faculty success: outcomes and cost benefit of the UCSD National Center of Leadership in Academic Medicine. Acad Med 2004;79:S9-11.
Wilmott et al
I
n 2007 the Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs (AMSPDC) became concerned about the high turnover rate of pediatric department chairs (PDC). In a study of 123 departments, there was a mean annual turnover rate of 17%,1 and the rate was particularly high among new and female PDC. A later study showed that there were very high rates of dissatisfaction and high “burnout” scores among PDC.2 To address this concern, AMSPDC developed a New Chair’s Committee charged with developing a formal mentoring program specifically for new PDC. Mentoring of medical school faculty has been widely recommended and shown to increase career growth and satisfaction, and increase faculty retention,3,4 yet there is very little literature about mentoring programs for new academic department chairs. The short-term goal of mentoring was to assist new PDC to acquire the skills to oversee the programs within their department, and the long-term goal was to improve rates of retention. The current survey was performed to evaluate the performance of the program as perceived by the proteges and mentors after 6 years of operation.
gram, and 55 accepted. Fourteen declined, usually because they had prior experience of being a PDC, or they had access to well-established mentoring programs at their university. Seven did not respond to 2 invitations. A questionnaire was administered to the proteges (www. surveymonkey.com) in February 2011 (16/17 responded), March 2012 (7/7 responded), and December 2014 (14/20 responded); 11 proteges were not surveyed because their length of participation in the program was short. The survey request was sent to the PDC proteges by e-mail and responses were anonymous; follow-up e-mail requests were sent to obtain a response rate of 82%. A similar survey was administered to the mentors in March 2012 (22/24 responded), and in December 2014 (14/18) responded. They were asked to complete a questionnaire for each mentoring relationship because some had had several proteges. The participants did not respond to every question so the total item response (N) was less than the maximum possible value. The results are summarized as N (%). Some percentage values did not sum to 100 because of rounding.
Methods
Eighty-four percent of proteges and 92% of mentors reported that the protege/mentor were a good match (Figure). The majority of proteges reported regular contact with their mentors, and 68% were satisfied with the frequency of meetings; 32% would have liked more meetings. Seventyeight percent of proteges stated that telephone meetings were an effective way to stay in contact; the main barrier reported was difficulty with scheduling. Nine (24%) had identified an institutional site visit as a goal and 8 had been completed. All proteges who had participated in a site visit reported that it was very/extremely valuable. Seventy-three percent of proteges reported that their mentor provided positive and critical feedback, and 95% rated communication as good or excellent. None of the proteges
PDC in their first year of appointment were matched with more experienced PDC (>5 years) based on medical center characteristics such as research intensity, size, state vs private, and personal preferences. We tried to also match mentor/ mentee pairs by sex. Proteges were able to request specific mentors, and these requests usually could be honored. When the program was initiated in January 2008, PDC appointed since January 2007 were invited to participate. Components of the program were meetings at the annual AMSPDC meeting and other national conferences, regular telephone calls, and site visits to the new chair’s medical center where the mentor met with medical school and hospital leadership; reverse site visits were also an option. AMSPDC allotted funding for these site visits as part of its annual budget and also offered a workshop for new PDC every 3 years at its annual meeting. From January 2008 to December 2014, 92 new PDC were appointed. Seventy-six were invited to participate in the pro-
AMSPDC PDC
Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs Pediatric department chairs
Results
From the 1Department of Pediatrics, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; 2Department of Pediatrics, Wake Forest School of Medicine, WinstonSalem, NC; 3Department of Pediatrics, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE; 4Department of Pediatrics, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA; 5Department of Pediatrics, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI; and 6Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR The mentoring program received funding from The Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. 0022-3476//$ - see front matter. Copyright ª 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2015.06.069
787
THE JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
www.jpeds.com
Vol. 167, No. 4 lum/guidelines, scheduling challenges, and problems created by differences in policies between institutions.
Discussion
ge s and mentors to a questionFigure. Responses of prote naire concerning the value of a new mentoring program for new PDC. The number of observations that did not contain missing or not applicable values is shown inside the base of each bar.
or mentors believed that there had been a breach of confidentiality. When asked whether they would recommend the program to others, 26 (70%) proteges responded yes, 6 (16%) maybe, 2 (5%) no, and 3 (8%) did not answer the question. The majority of mentors reported that their participation was rewarding (22 excellent, 8 good, 2 fair, 4 not available). Thirty-three percent of proteges felt the mentoring had reached a point where it was no longer necessary; however, 67% have continued to meet, some of them for several years. Strengths of the partnership reported were advice from a senior trusted colleague, insights from a different perspective, a positive supportive relationship, and experience of the mentor coupled with openness to sharing ideas. Reported opportunities for improvement included a lack of curricu-
788
This initial evaluation of a mentoring program for new PDC provided encouraging results. In general, the program achieved its short-term goals although there were opportunities for improvement by creation of a curriculum, sending out reminder messages, encouragement of more institutional site visits, and improved identification of new PDC. These will be addressed in future roll-outs of the program. It is difficult to obtain objective data concerning any possible effect on the high turnover of new PDC as there are many contributing factors to the turnover rate. However, AMSPDC will be performing another study soon to assess job satisfaction, rates of retention, and reasons for stepping down. It is hoped that the results will show improvement in turnover, length of tenure, and job satisfaction compared with earlier surveys.1 n We thank Carolyn Whitton Fingerman, PMP, and Linda Kozlowski (Degnon Associates) for assistance with the mentoring program and the surveys. Reprint requests: Robert W. Wilmott, MD, Department of Pediatrics, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, SSM Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center, 1465 South Grand Blvd, St. Louis, MO 63104. E-mail: [email protected]
References 1. Stapleton FB, Jones D, Fiser DH. Leadership trends in academic pediatric departments. Pediatrics 2005;116:342-4. 2. McPhillips HA, Stanton B, Zuckerman B, Stapleton FB. Role of a pediatric department chair: factors leading to satisfaction and burnout. J Pediatr 2007;151:425-30. 3. Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A. Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. JAMA 2006;296:1103-15. 4. Wingard DL, Garman KA, Reznik V. Facilitating faculty success: outcomes and cost benefit of the UCSD National Center of Leadership in Academic Medicine. Acad Med 2004;79:S9-11.
Wilmott et al