The chronicle of mentoring & coaching最新文献

Mentoring can help promote faculty retention at academic health centers (AHCs). Faculty retention is important to optimize patient care and reduce replacement costs. Nationally "work life balance" (WLB) is identified by faculty as a reason to leave (ARTL) AHCs (Alexander & Lang, 2008). To help mitigate faculty attrition at AHCs, we examined work life balance as a reason to leave (WLB-ARTL) and other associated factors at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine (UNM SOM). Faculty responses from 255 faculty that left UNM SOM between July 2017 and December 2020 were analyzed using logistic regression with the outcome WLB-ARTL. Distributions of each variable were tabulated. Odds ratio associations from logistic regression between WLB-ARTL and each variable were obtained. Multivariate logistic regression modeling was performed with backward selection at p<0.05. Of the 255 faculty who exited the University of New Mexico School of Medicine (UNM SOM), 25% had WLB-ARTL, 48% were women, 72% were physicians, 58% were clinician-educators, and 13% were from racial/ethnic underrepresented minorities (URMs). Multivariate modeling found four factors associated with increased WLB-ARTL: compensation, time for academic pursuits, spousal and family support, and dislike of patient care conditions and environment. Two factors associated with lower WLB-ARTL were better leadership and periodic reviews addressing job satisfaction. Gender, URM, and physician status were not found to be significant. Similar to previous studies (Whittaker et al., n.d.), we found that WLB-ARTL at UNM SOM was associated with specific "work" and "life" factors. Faculty retention efforts should focus on "work" factors such as providing protected time for academic pursuits and improving patient care conditions, and "life" factors such as addressing compensation and supporting families.

The growing application of social network-based theories and methods (Burt et al., 2013) in scholarship on mentoring illustrates that mentoring goes beyond dyadic relationships comprising a senior mentor and a junior protégé (Higgins & Kram, 2001). However, limited data exist on the state of developmental networks of university faculty. This study examines developmental network characteristics among mentors and mentees participating in an ongoing intervention that aims to enhance career success through improved mentoring. Cross-sectional data come from 81 faculty mentors and mentees at three universities in the Southwestern United States. Using the online Modified Mentoring Network Questionnaire (MNQ), participants provided information on relationships with developers, who are people that have taken concerted action, and provided professional and/or personal guidance to help participants advance in their careers. An individual's developmental network comprises relationships with developers. We conducted exploratory analyses examining key characteristics of mentors' and mentees' developmental networks. Participants received psychosocial and career support from an average of 4.9 developers (4.8 and 5.1 for mentors and mentees respectively) from 2.3 arenas (2.2 and 2.4 arenas for mentors and mentees, respectively). While the most common arena was the respondents' current job/position (62%, 64% and 59% for all participants, mentors, and mentees respectively), developers were from graduate school (11%, 6% and 17%); prior jobs/positions (13%, 16% and 9%) and family (8%, 5% and 11%). Our preliminary findings suggest that developers are important for university faculty and that methods and insights from social network analysis can be applied to examine their support networks. As our study is part of an ongoing longitudinal intervention, these findings will inform future analyses that will examine changes in developmental network characteristics and its impact on participants' careers.

National data indicate about 50% of junior faculty leave a School of Medicine (SOM) within eight years of hire. The long-term goal of the study was to determine innovative strategies for promoting SOM faculty retention. The study objective was to determine factors influencing SOM faculty to exit, and what would encourage them to stay or return. All faculty exiting the University of New Mexico (UNM) SOM were surveyed and their responses analyzed to the following items: (a) If something could have been done differently that might have resulted in staying at UNM, what would it have been? (b) What would need to change at UNM SOM for you to return? and (c) general comments offered. Qualitative analysis of open-ended responses used an iterative process and systematic thematic approach and NVivo software. 173 faculty respondents surveyed between July 2017 and June 2019 included 86 women, 33 non-Caucasians, and 14 Hispanics. A total of 110 faculty reported an MD degree and 117 were assistant professors. Seventy-eight faculty were on clinician educator track. The 367 responses to the three questions were categorized into 10 themes. The most common themes included (a) people (leadership and others) and workplace culture (25.1% of responses); (b) extent of career support and resources (15.3%); (c) organizational systems and administration (13.6%); and (d) faculty feelings of autonomy and value (10.9%). Exiting faculty frequently discussed the need for a change of leadership and changes in organizational climate and culture, which may have influenced their willingness to stay or to return to UNM SOM. To retain faculty, SOM leaders need to strengthen and/or modify organizational climate and culture components. Innovative strategies for this purpose may include organizational interventions followed by evidence-based leadership training programs, and the use of exit surveys for monitoring interventions.

National data indicate that 50% of assistant professors leave a School of Medicine (SOM) within eight years of hire. At-risk for attrition in some studies are women, racial/ethnic underrepresented minorities (URM), and clinical faculty. Retention of faculty is not adequately studied in the Southwestern US, where at-risk faculty constitute the majority group. The study hypothesized that at-risk faculty have lower retention rates than those not at-risk. Identification of factors predicting retention of at-risk faculty may help institutions devise novel and targeted retention strategies. Prospective time to event analyses studied assistant professors hired at the University of New Mexico's (UNM) SOM from 2008-2019. Eight factors, measured at the time of hire, included: rank, race/ethnicity, gender, MD degree, academic track, department type, salary, and fiscal year of hire. Univariate analyses included graphical analysis of Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazard ratios with years to departure measuring the main event to resignation. 844 full-time junior faculty included 50% women, 81% physicians, 42% clinician educators, and 18% racial/ethnic URM. Compared to non-Hispanic Whites, Black faculty (HR = 2.24, 1.25-4.03) and faculty with non-US degree (1.53, 1.19-1.94) had a higher risk of leaving. Faculty in clinician educator (2.01, 1.06-3.82) or visiting research tracks (2.41, 1.20-4.84) both had higher risk of leaving than tenure track faculty. Although URM faculty did not have an overall higher risk of departure, male faculty had higher risk of leaving than women when they are URM or unknown-URM status. In our analysis of junior faculty, we showed that faculty who were Black, had an international education, and in clinician educator or visiting research tracks were at greater risk of leaving, but women and Hispanic faculty had similar retention rates as their respective counterparts at UNM SOM. The differential retention rates among several at-risk subgroups of junior faculty may indicate the need to refocus the existing diversity and faculty development programs at UNM SOM.

Effective practices for selecting mentors for new faculty at academic health centers (AHC) are currently unknown. The University of New Mexico's School of Medicine assigns a mentor to all new faculty at the time of hire. The effectiveness of this policy measure has not been previously evaluated. The research question was to determine the proportion of new faculty mentees who meet with their assigned mentors before their mandatory orientation held within their first year of hire. At the orientation, faculty are surveyed about their response to the institutional policy of assigning mentors upon their hire. The proportion of new faculty mentees who met their assigned mentors prior to the orientation event constituted the primary study outcome. Of the 289 new faculty surveyed, 79.9% met their assigned mentors prior to the orientation - most meetings were weekly (48.8%) or monthly (27.9%). Among those who had not yet met their mentors, 65% planned to meet them within the month of the survey. 5.5% of all faculty reported a change of mentor from their initial assignment and 2.8% stated that they needed a different mentor. Physicians were less likely to meet with their assigned mentors than non-physician faculty (p=0.02). The preliminary policy evaluation demonstrates that most new faculty either meet or plan to meet their assigned mentors. Most participants stated that they did not need to be assigned a different mentor. Assigning mentors for new faculty hires may be considered a best practice at an AHC.

Background: The institutional mentoring climate influences the success of mentoring programs. There currently exists no validated survey to assess this climate - a critical gap in this field.

Objective: To establish and validate a survey to assess the institutional climate for mentoring at a Health Sciences Center.

Methods: We created a survey with the following four dimensions - mentoring structure (with 13 items); mentoring programs/activities (with 11 items); and mentoring policies/guidelines (with nine items), followed by an overall value dimension (with four items). Four experts evaluated this survey for content validity. These experts rated each program item, on a score of one to four, on whether the item related to the overall conceptual framework and to the dimension in which it was placed in the survey.

Results: The mean scores for individual items as they related to the overall conceptual framework ranged from 3.25 to 4.0. On the other hand, the mean scores for items as they related to individual dimensions were lower. Items with lower score were associated with the following - a question simultaneously asked about multiple things, the possibility that faculty respondent might be unfamiliar with leader's role outlined in the question, and binary structure or lack of clarity of the question. All 37 items were retained, with modifications as necessary.

Conclusions: We established the content validity of our survey. The next step will be to establish its construct validity. Having a valid and reliable scale will help support and evaluate interventions for improving institutional mentoring climate at academic centers.