1. Mentoring! A Comprehensive New Program for the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Michigan Margaret Riley, MD, Margaret Dobson, MD, Eric Skye, MD Faculty Demographics and Survey Respondents: Hypothesis: Mentorship is important to our faculty Faculty with mentors will have improved satisfaction and academic productivity Baseline levels of mentorship are inadequate Purpose: Assess baseline status of mentoring within our department Explore existing relationships between mentorship, job satisfaction, and academic productivity Clarify strengths and weaknesses of our current mentorship Use these results to develop a comprehensive and structured mentoring program BACKGROUND PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS “A mentoring relationship is one that may vary along a continuum from informal/short-term to formal/long-term in which faculty with useful experience, knowledge, skills, and/or wisdom offers advice, information, guidance, support, or opportunity to another faculty member or student for that individual’s professional development.” 1 Having a mentor has been associated with: 2-4 Increased career satisfaction Increased academic productivity A sense of community Lack of quality mentorship has been identified as an impediment to a successful academic career. 2-4 Junior faculty in particular may lack in effective mentorship 5,6 Junior faculty may receive advice only from their mentors Advocacy and “sponsorship” are needed for career advancement METHODS RESULTS Structure Mentorship: Mentorship Dyads New and junior faculty assigned a more senior faculty mentor based on shared interests Encourage quarterly meetings tracked through the chair’s office Provide eRVU’s to mentors to show value for their time Provide tools for tracking goal setting Offer content to discuss at each meeting Peer Mentorship Groups New faculty and junior faculty groups facilitated by slightly senior faculty member Self-directed All Faculty Activities Speed mentoring CV review session Improve quality of mentorship Faculty Development Panel discussion with expert mentors Speaker on “sponsorship” of mentees Tools provided to mentors to improve yield of meetings Assessment Mentorship discussed with chair at meetings with individual faculty Repeat survey 2 years after program began CONCLUSIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY 1) Berk RA, Berg J, Mortimer R, Walton-Moss B, Yeo TP. Measuring the Effectiveness of Faculty Mentoring Relationships. Acad Med 2005;80:66-71. 2) Buddeberg-Fischer B, Herta KD. Formal mentoring programs for medical students and doctors – A review of the Medline literature. Med Teach 2006;28:248-257. 3) Wasserstein AG, Quistberg A, Judy JA. Mentoring at the University of Pennsylvania: Results of a faculty survey. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22:210-214. 4) Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A. Mentoring in academic medicine: A systematic review. JAMA 2006;296:1103-1115. 5) Chew LD, Watanabe JM, Buchwald D, Lessler DS. Junior Faculty’s perspectives on mentoring. Acad Med 2003;78:652. 6) Palepu A, Friedman RH, Barnett RC, Carr PL, Ash AS, Szalacha L, Moskowitz MA, et al. Junior faculty members’ mentoring relationships and their professional development in U.S. medical schools. Acad Med 1998;73:318-323. Mentorship is essential for success in academic medicine At baseline less than half of our faculty had mentors Junior faculty were disproportionally affected by lack of mentorship Mentorship was not associated with job satisfaction, connection with the department, or sense of support These variables were high at baseline, power may have been inadequate to detect differences Mentorship was associated with some measures of academic productivity including national presentations and leadership roles A structured program may help improve both quality and quantity of mentorship for Family Medicine faculty Baseline survey of all faculty asking about: Importance of mentorship If they have/are a mentor Number of mentors, if the mentors were chosen/assigned, peer mentors, mentors from an outside department Job satisfaction Sense of connection with the department Sense of support by the department Knowledge of departmental processes Academic productivity Papers, presentation, grants, curriculum development, leadership roles, committee involvement Faculty Demographics N=75Survey Respondents N=63p-value Academic Track - Clinical Faculty - Research Faculty 83% (N=62) 17% (N=13) 78% (N=49) 22% (N=13) 0.58 Gender 59% Women (N=44) 41% Men (N=31) Not asked N/A Rank - Professor - Associate Professor - Assistant Professor - Clinical Instructor - Clinical Lecturer - Clinical Psychologist 11% (N=8) 16% (N=12) 37% (N=28) 4% (N=3) 31% (N=23) 1% (N=1) 13% (N=8) 19% (N=12) 32% (N=20) 5% (N=3) 29% (N=18) 2% (N=1) 0.98 97% (N=60) believe it is very or somewhat important to have a mentor 45% (N=28) have a current mentor No difference by track or rank (p=0.41 for track, p=0.99 for rank) Fellowship trained faculty are more likely to have a mentor (p=0.009) 40% (N=25) are a current mentor Mentor DescriptionJunior FacultySenior Facultyp-value Source of mentor: -Chosen -Assigned 74% (N=14) 26% (N=5) 100% (N=9) 0% (N=0) 0.09 Number of mentors: -Single mentor -Multiple mentors 26% (N=5) 73% (N=14) 0% (N=0) 100% (N=9) 0.09 Mentor identity: -Senior member of FM department -Peer mentor -Member of an outside department 84% (N=16) 37% (N=7) 26% (N=5) 67% (N=6) 56% (N=5) 100% (N=9) 0.29 0.35 <0.001 Mentorship Satisfaction: Junior faculty less satisfied with baseline mentorship (p=0.015) Satisfaction with mentorship higher among those with a mentor (p=0.001) No association between mentorship satisfaction and: If the mentor was assigned or chosen (p=0.88) Number of mentors (p=0.98) Number of mentor-mentee meetings per year (p=0.99) Job Satisfaction: High baseline levels of job satisfaction (84%, N=52 very or somewhat satisfied), sense of departmental support (82%, N=51 very or somewhat supported), and connection with the department (71%, N=44 very or somewhat connected) Not effected by the presence or absence of a mentor Academic Productivity: Faculty members with a mentor were more likely to: Present a talk or poster nationally (p=0.014) Have taken on a new educational or leadership role (p=0.028) Achieve a greater number of academic activities overall (p=0.031) INTERVENTION