The Impact of Defense Expenses in Medical Malpractice Claims

The objective of this study was to take a closer look at defense related expenses for medical malpractice cases over time. We conducted a retrospective review of medical malpractice claims reported to the Physician Insurers Association of America’s Data Sharing Project with a closing date between January 1, 1985 and December 31, 2008. On average a medical malpractice claim costs more than $27,000 to defend. Claims that go to trial are much more costly to defend than are those that are dropped, withdrawn, or dismissed. However, since the overwhelming majority of claims are dropped, withdrawn, or dismissed, the total amount spent to defend them surpasses that spent on claims that go to trial. Defense attorney expenses account for the majority of defense related expenses (74%), while expert witness expenses and other expenses split the remaining 26%. A strong association was also found between the average indemnity payment and the amount it costs to defend individual claims by specialty. Our study found that defense related expenses for medical malpractice claims are not an insignificant cost. As state and federal governments debate how to repair the malpractice system, addressing the high cost of defending claims should not be ignored

Meeting expectations: The connection to outcomes in mentoring relationships

This study was conducted to better our understanding of how mentors and protégés interact with and influence each other within a formal mentoring relationship. We hypothesized that one of the most important factors in successful mentoring relationships concerns whether or not each participant’s expectations regarding the mentoring relationship are met. The sample consisted of 47 mentors and 84 protégés of a formal mentoring program fro aspiring school administrators. This study found support for the hypothesis that support behaviors and relationship outcomes are indeed fully or partially explained by the expectations of the relationship. The current study found that if an individual feels their mentoring partner is meeting their expectations they are more committed to continuation of the relationship, trust their partner more, and feel that the relationship itself is more effective. Additionally, those individuals who reported higher levels of relationship effectiveness, trust in one’s partner, and commitment to the mentoring relationship were more likely to continue the mentoring relationship after completion of the program. This provides organizers of formal mentoring programs an insight into these formally arranged relationships – if the relationships are not as beneficial as a mentor or protégé expects, they will only stay in the relationship while the program is active. The current study did not however support the propositions put forth regarding mentor behavior and career related outcomes for the protégé

Independent investigator incubator (I3): a comprehensive mentorship program to jumpstart productive research careers for junior faculty

Abstract Background In the highly competitive environment of academic medicine, junior faculty investigators face high attrition rates due to challenges in finding effective mentorship, securing grant funding, and obtaining resources to support their career development and research productivity. The purpose of this study was to describe the centralized, cost-sharing design of the Independent Investigator Incubator (I3) program as a novel approach to junior faculty mentoring and to evaluate quantitative outcomes for program improvement. Methods In September 2014, the I3 pilot program, a comprehensive mentorship program targeting junior faculty pursuing research careers, was launched. Participants included junior faculty during the crucial first three years of their research careers or during their transition from career development awards to more independent research. Following initial screening, the I3 mentees were paired with a senior faculty “super-mentor” with expertise in either basic science or clinical research. Mentees were provided with robust traditional one-on-one mentoring, targeted feedback from a super-mentor review committee, as well as biostatistician and grant writing support. To assess the effectiveness of the I3 program, we tracked outcome measures via baseline and 12-month mentee surveys. Data collected assessed program diversity, mentee self-assessments, evaluation of the mentoring relationship, scholarship and productivity metrics. Raw data were analyzed using a paired t-test in Excel (P < 0.05). Results Results of the baseline mentee self-assessment survey found that the I3 mentees indicated common “perceive deficits” including navigating the organizational and institutional culture, clear direction in achieving promotion and tenure, among others. When baseline mentee survey responses were compared to 12-month responses, we identified strong “perceived growth” in categories, such as Research and Interpersonal Skills and Career Development Skills. Further, productivity metrics at 12-months revealed that roughly 80% of I3 mentees successfully published a manuscript(s). The I3 program has helped generate roughly $12.1 million dollars in investigator-initiated funding after two years in the program. Conclusion The I3 program allows for shared costs between institutions and increased availability of successful subject matter experts. Study results imply that the I3 mentoring program provides transformative mentorship for junior faculty. Using our findings, we developed courses and an annual “snapshot” of mentee performance for mentors