Evaluating Coaching Programs

Take home points Program evaluation depends on the goals; the clearer they are, the more effective the program will be. Evaluation models are powerful tools, but expertise in using them is critical. Evaluation begins before, and continues after, the intervention itself. Success criteria should be defined and stakeholders’ participation ensured before choosing evaluation measures

Does Formal Mentoring for Faculty Members Matter? A Survey of Clinical Faculty in U.S. Medical Schools

Background: Mentoring relationships, for all medical school faculty members, are an important component of lifelong development and education, yet an understanding of mentoring among medical school clinical faculty members is incomplete. This study examined associations between formal mentoring relationships and aspects of faculty members\u27 engagement and satisfaction. It then explored the variability of these associations across subgroups of clinical faculty members to understand the status of mentoring and outcomes of mentoring relationships. The authors hypothesised that academic clinical faculty members currently in formal mentoring relationships experience enhanced employee engagement and satisfaction with their department and institution. Methods: Medical school faculty members at 26 self-selected USA institutions participated in the 2011-2014 Faculty Forward Engagement Survey. Responses from clinical faculty members were analysed for relationships between mentoring status and perceptions of engagement by faculty members. Results: Of the 11 953 clinical faculty respondents, almost one-third reported having a formal mentoring relationship (30%; 3529). Most mentored faculty indicated the relationship was important (86%; n = 3027), and over three-fourths were satisfied with their mentoring experience (77%; n = 2722). Mentored faculty members across ranks reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction and more positive perceptions of their roles in the organisation. Faculty members who were not receiving mentoring reported significantly less satisfaction with their workplace environment and lower overall satisfaction. Conclusions: Mentored clinical faculty members have significantly greater satisfaction with their department and institution. This multi-institutional study provides evidence that fostering mentoring opportunities may facilitate faculty members\u27 satisfaction and engagement, which, in turn, may help medical schools retain high-quality faculty staff committed to the multidimensional academic mission

Predictors of Workplace Satisfaction for U.S. Medical School Faculty in an Era of Change and Challenge

Purpose: To examine the current state of satisfaction with the academic medicine workplace among U.S. medical school faculty and the workplace factors that have the greatest influence on global satisfaction. Method: The authors used data from the 2009 administration of a medical school faculty job satisfaction survey and used descriptive statistics and χ analyses to assess levels of overall satisfaction within faculty subgroups. Multiple regressions used the mean scores of the 18 survey dimensions and demographic variables to predict three global satisfaction measures. Results: The survey was completed by 9,638 full-time faculty from 23 U.S. medical schools. Respondents were mostly satisfied on global satisfaction measures including satisfaction with their department (6,506/9,128; 71.3%) and medical school (5,796/9,124; 63.5%) and whether they would again choose to work at their medical school (5,968/8,506; 70.2%). The survey dimensions predicted global satisfaction well, with the final models explaining 51% to 67% of the variance in the dependent measures. Predictors across models include organization, governance, and transparency; focus of mission; recruitment and retention effectiveness; department relationships; workplace culture; and nature of work. Conclusions: Despite the relatively unpredictable environmental challenges facing medical schools today, leaders have opportunities to influence and improve the workplace satisfaction of their faculty. Examples of opportunities include fostering a culture characterized by open communication and occasions for faculty input, and remaining vigilant regarding factors contributing to faculty burnout. Understanding what drives faculty satisfaction is crucial for medical schools as they continue to seek excellence in all missions and recruit and retain high-quality faculty

Characteristics, Satisfaction, and Engagement of Part-Time Faculty at U.S. Medical Schools

Purpose: To describe the demographics of part-time faculty at U.S. medical schools and to examine their satisfaction with and perceptions of their workplace. Method: Faculty from 14  Liaison Committee on Medical Education-accredited U.S. medical schools participated in the 2011–2012 Faculty Forward Engagement Survey. The authors calculated descriptive statistics of part-time faculty respondents and used ANOVA and t test analyses to assess significant differences between and among demographic groups. Results: The survey yielded an overall response rate of 62% (9,600/15,490). Of the part-time faculty respondents, most had appointments in clinical departments (634/674; 94%) and were female (415/674; 62%). Just over 80% (384/474) reported a full-time equivalent of 0.5 or higher. The majority of part-time faculty respondents reported satisfaction with their department and medical school as a place to work (372/496 [75%] and 325/492 [66%]); approximately half agreed that their institution had clear expectations for part-time faculty (210/456; 46%) and provided the resources they needed (232/457; 51%). Significant differences existed between part- and full-time faculty respondents regarding perceptions of growth opportunities and compensation and benefits, with part-time faculty respondents feeling less satisfied in these areas. Conclusions: As institutions work to improve the satisfaction of full-time faculty, they should do the same for part-time faculty. Understanding why faculty choose part-time work is important in encouraging the recruitment and retention of the most talented faculty. The findings of this study indicate multiple opportunities to improve the satisfaction and engagement of part-time faculty

Editors as Gatekeepers: One Medical Education Journal\u27s Efforts to Resist Racism in Scholarly Publishing

PURPOSE: Journals have begun to expand the racial diversity of editors as a first step to countering institutional racism. Given the power editors hold as gatekeepers, a diverse team helps ensure that minoritized scholars have equal opportunity to contribute. In 2021, Teaching and Learning in Medicine (TLM) created an editorial internship for racially minoritized individuals. This study examines the first 6 months of this program to better understand its creation and initial successes. METHOD: The authors employed critical collaborative autoethnography, a qualitative methodology, focusing on the underlying assumptions around power and hierarchy that are implicit in the design and implementation of the TLM internship. Participants included 13 TLM editorial board members (10 internship selection committee members, 3 mentors, 2 independent researchers), 3 external selection committee members, and 3 interns, with some holding multiple roles. Ten participants served as authors of this report. Data included archival emails, planning documents, and focus groups. The initial analysis explored what happened and how and was followed by a thematic analysis in which participants reflected on their responsibility for implementing an antiracist program. RESULTS: While the program developed interns\u27 editorial skills, which they greatly valued, and diversified the TLM editorial board, it did not achieve the goal of fostering antiracism. Mentors focused on conducting joint peer reviews with interns, assuming that racial experiences can and should be separate from the editorial process, thus working within, rather than trying to change, the existing racist system. CONCLUSIONS: Given these findings, greater structural change is needed to disrupt the existing racist system. These experiences underscore the importance of recognizing the harmful impact a race-neutral lens can have on antiracist efforts. Moving forward, TLM will implement lessons learned ahead of offering the internship again with the goal of creating the transformative change intended with the creation of the program

Evolution of faculty affairs and faculty development offices in U.S. medical schools: a 10-year follow-up survey

PURPOSE: To determine how U.S. MD-granting medical schools manage, fund, and evaluate faculty affairs/development functions and to determine the evolution of these offices between 2000 and 2010. METHOD: In December 2010, the authors invited faculty affairs designees at 131 U.S. MD-granting medical schools to complete a questionnaire developed by the Association of American Medical Colleges Group on Faculty Affairs, based on a 2000 survey. Schools were asked about core functions, budget, staffing, and performance metrics. The authors analyzed the data using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 111 schools (84.7%) responded. Fifty percent of the offices were established since 2000. Seventy-eight percent reported their top core function as administrative support for appointments, promotions, and tenure, as in 2000. Faculty policies, appointments, databases, governance support, grievance proceedings, management issues, and annual trend analyses continued as major functions. All 11 core functions identified in 2000 remain predominantly provided by central offices of faculty affairs, except support of major leadership searches. Web site communication emerged as a new core function. Similar to 2000, several other offices were responsible for some faculty development functions. Office size and budget correlated positively with size of the faculty and age of the office (P \u3c .05 for all). Thirty-five schools (31.5%) reported formally evaluating their faculty affairs office. CONCLUSIONS: The number of faculty affairs offices and their responsibilities have substantially increased since 2000. Most major core functions have not changed. These offices are now an established part of the central administration of most medical schools