A risk stratification tool to assess commecial influences on continuing medical education

Introduction: Heightened concerns about industry influence on continuing medical education (CME) have prompted tighter controls on the management of commercial funding and conflict of interest. As a result, CME providers must closely monitor their activities and intervene if bias or noncompliance with accreditation standards is likely. Potential for industry influence can be difficult to assess at a stage in the planning process when mitigation strategies can assure balance and content validity. Few tools exist to aid providers in this regard. Methods: A 12-item instrument was designed to assess risk for commercial influence on CME. To determine reliability and validity, a cohort of experienced CME professionals applied the tool to standardized cases representing CME activities in the early stages of planning. Results were compared with the experts\u27 assignment of the same cases to one of four risk categories. A survey of study participants was conducted to ascertain usefulness and potential applications of the tool. Results: Analysis demonstrated strong intraclass correlation across cases (0.90), interrater reliability (94%), and correlation between assessment of risk with and without the tool (Spearman coefficient, 0.93, p \u3c 0.01; weighted kappa, 0.59). Participants found the tool easy to use and of potential benefit to their CME office. Discussion: The Consortium for Academic Continuing Medical Education (CACME) risk stratification tool can help CME providers identify activities that must be closely monitored for potential industry influence, remain aware of factors that place programming at risk for noncompliance with accreditation standards, and substantiate the allocation of resources by the CME office

Meeting the Late-Career Needs of Faculty Transitioning Through Retirement: One Institution\u27s Approach

PROBLEM: Medical school faculty are aging, but few academic health centers are adequately prepared with policies, programs, and resources (PPR) to assist late-career faculty. The authors sought to examine cultural barriers to successful retirement and create alignment between individual and institutional needs and tasks through PPR that embrace the contributions of senior faculty while enabling retirement transitions at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, 2013-2017. APPROACH: Faculty 50 or older were surveyed, programs at other institutions and from the literature (multiple fields) were reviewed, and senior faculty and leaders, including retired faculty, were engaged to develop and implement PPR. Cultural barriers were found to be significant, and a multipronged, multiyear strategy to address these barriers, which sequentially added PPR to support faculty, was put in place. A comprehensive framework of sequenced PPR was developed to address the needs and tasks of late-career transitions within three distinct phases: pre-retirement, retirement, and post-retirement. OUTCOMES: This sequential introduction approach has led to important outcomes for all three of the retirement phases, including reduction of cultural barriers, a policy that has been useful in assessing viability of proposed phased retirement plans, transparent and realistic discussions about financial issues, and consideration of roles that retired faculty can provide. NEXT STEPS: The authors are tracking the issues mentioned in consultations and efficacy of succession planning, and will be resurveying faculty to further refine their work. This framework approach could serve as a template for other academic health centers to address late-career faculty development

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

A Systematic Review of Development Programs Designed to Address Leadership in Academic Health Center Faculty

INTRODUCTION: To describe Academic Health Center (AHC) faculty leadership development program characteristics and categorize leadership topics into thematic areas suggesting competency domains to guide programmatic curricular development. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted (PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature [CINAHL], and Journal Storage [JSTOR databases]). Eligible studies described programs with leadership development intent for faculty in AHCs. Information was extracted using a structured data form and process. RESULTS: Six hundred ninety citations were screened; 25 publications describing 22 unique programs were eligible. The majority (73%) were institutionally based; mean class size was 18.5 (SD +/- 10.2, range 4.5-48); and mean in-person time commitment was 110 hours (SD +/- 101.2, range 16-416), commonly occurring in regular intervals over months to years (n = 10, 45%). Six programs provided per participant costs (mean $7,400, range$1000-$21,000). Didactic teaching was the primary instructional method (99.5%); a majority (68%) included project work. Fourteen thematic content areas were derived from 264 abstracted topics. The majority or near majority incorporated content regarding leadership skills, organizational strategy and alignment, management, self-assessment, and finance/budget. DISCUSSION: Institutions and faculty invest significantly in leadership development programs, addressing perceived needs and with perceived benefit for both. The prevalence of common curricular content indicates that AHCs deem important faculty development in leadership, business, and self-assessment skills