1. B. Keith English, M.D. Departmental Meeting, Pediatrics and Human Development, 11/19/14

2. 1.Summary of “Faculty Forward” survey results 2.Quick Update on APR Process 3.Updates from the Cross- Campus Retreat held on 11/1/14 Agenda Items

3. Using AAMC Faculty Forward 2014 Survey Results for Departmental Planning College of Human Medicine and Pediatrics and Human Development Results Prepared by Donna Mulder

4. Share AAMC Faculty Forward College and Department Results Discuss Action Planning Steps to Involve Department Faculty Meeting Purpose

5. Gathering Faculty Feedback Communicati ng the Results Using the survey results for organizational improvement Interpreting the Results CHM participated in the AAMC’s Faculty Forward program – a national faculty engagement program administered by the AAMC Faculty Forward provides data via an engagement survey to inform change Faculty Forward Program

6. CHM Participation Goals: o Assess status of faculty engagement in the College o Use survey results to address College-wide faculty engagement issues & concerns o Develop departmental-specific action plans to address faculty engagement issues & concerns based on survey results CHM Goals

7. Faculty Engagement is defined as: Attitudes faculty members have toward their workplace experiences (job satisfaction) Expressed in behavioral outcomes such as institutional altruism and levels of effort. Definition of Faculty Engagement

8. Several U.S. medical schools have participated in Faculty Forward. We chose 4 schools as “peers” for benchmarking as highlighted in RED below: Method: Survey Administration  Georgia Health Sciences University (Georgia Regents)  University of Nevada School of Medicine  University of New Mexico School of Medicine  University of Oklahoma College of Medicine  George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences  Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University  Johns Hopkins University (Radiology Department)  Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine  Medical College of Wisconsin  Michigan State University College of Human Medicine  University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences  University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine  University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine  University of Florida College of Medicine  University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-New Jersey Medical School (Rutgers)  University of Mississippi School of Medicine  University of Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine  University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry

9. A web-based survey was sent to all full-time and part-time employed CHM faculty. Administered in December of 2013 Data analyzed by AAMC Method: Survey Administration

10. Results are provided in a way to ensure confidentiality of all respondents: o Responses shared only when 5 or more respondents o Demographic variables not cross tabulated at the department level of analysis o We only have access to quantitative, not qualitative, data reports Confidentiality of Faculty Forward

11. College of Human Medicine Michigan State University College-Wide Results

12. Eligible faculty population: 256 Response rate: 69.1% Faculty Forward cohort response rate: 62.5 % CHM Response Rate

13. Framework for Interpreting Results “Top Two” results: Percent of respondents who strongly agree or agree: 90% or more = a highly favorable, meaningful response 75-89% = a very meaningful favorable response 65-74% = a somewhat favorable response 35-64% = a result that requires further study and context 25-34% = a somewhat unfavorable response 10-24% = a very meaningful unfavorable response Less than 10% = a highly meaningful unfavorable response

14. CHM Results: Global Satisfaction All things considered, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your medical school as a place to work? Satisfaction with Michigan State University College of Human Medicine Satisfaction with Medical School Comparison to Your Peer Group and the Cohort

15. CHM Survey Theme Area Results Summary scores represent overall top two response options (e.g., strongly agree or agree) across all faculty respondents at CHM Figure 1: Summary Scores Across All Faculty at Our Institution

16. CHM Top Issues & Concerns Summary Score Our InstitutionPeers Top Two% Department Governance62%63% Medical School Governance46%51% Growth Opportunities64% Faculty Recruitment and Retention53%60% Clinical Practice42%50% Highest ranked institutional areas of concern:

17. Department Results Response Rate: Eligible department population: 28 Departmental completion rate: 82% Pediatrics and Human Development Results

18. Framework for Interpreting Results “Top Two” results: Percent of respondents who strongly agree or agree: Again we are looking for ratings lower than 65% 35-64% = a result that requires further study and context 25-34% = a somewhat unfavorable response 10-24% = a very meaningful unfavorable response Less than 10% = a highly meaningful unfavorable response

19. All things considered, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your department as a place to work? Pediatrics: Global Satisfaction

20. Pediatrics: Benchmarking Summary Score CHM Pediatrics Other CHM Clinical Pediatrics Peers Pediatrics Cohort Top Two% My Job76%84%78%80% Focus on Medical School Mission59%67%62%63% Workplace Culture59%65%57%63% Department Governance50%60%52%56% Medical School Governance35%48%47%44% Relationship with Supervisor70%73%69%72% Growth Opportunities62%64%57%55% Promotion Equality76% 73%72% Collegiality and Collaboration61%71% Compensation and Benefits60%73%59%64% Faculty Recruitment and Retention36%54%58%61% Clinical Practice31%45%42%53% Item Comparison Pediatrics Results to Other CHM Clinical Departments, Peer Institutions and Cohort

21. Top Five Areas of Concern with Benchmarking Summary Score CHM Pediatrics Other CHM Clinical Pediatrics Peers Pediatrics Cohort Top Two% Workplace Culture59%65%57%63% Department Governance50%60%52%56% Faculty Recruitment and Retention36%54%58%61% Medical School Governance35%48%47%44% Clinical Practice31%45%42%53% Note: Summary scores do not include “I don’t know” or “Not Applicable”

22. William Wadland, M.D., M.S. Task Force Chair William A. Anderson, Ph.D. Jeffrey Dwyer, Ph.D. Barbara Forney, M.S Wanda Lipscomb, PhD. Michael McLeod, M.D. Richard Miksicek, Ph.D. Donna Mulder Deborah Sleight, Ph.D. David Solomon, Ph.D. CHM Task Force Members

23. Pediatrics and Human Development APR: Timetable Self-study to be completed by February 1, 2015 Report to Dean and then Provost in April, 2015 Great opportunity for strategic planning for Pediatrics – we want input from ALL faculty

24. The Six Key Questions for the APR 1.What do we do? 2.Why do we do it? 3.How well do we do it and who thinks so? 4.What difference would it make whether we did it or not? 5.Given our present status, how do we intend to change in ways that help us advance? 6.How will we evaluate our future progress and successes?

25. Updates from APR Working Groups Breakout sessions on: -Faculty Development, -Cross-Campus Collaboration -Recruiting and Retaining Faculty Summary of Cross-Campus Retreat 11/1/14

26. Moderated by Mona Hanna-Attisha, M.D. Faculty Development –Clinician educators –Researchers Faculty Development Session

27. OMERAD Resources Sir William Osler-Inspired Master Clinical Teacher Series (Flint) OMERAD CRMP – pilot in GR Academic detailers in communities MSU FOD? Lilly Scholars/Adams Scholar? Embed in GRs, PECs, Department meetings Current State

28. Minimal research faculty devp –Better for tenure faculty Role of mentorship Current State

29. New Curriculum – learning societies, intense faculty development More broadcasting (Indiana) Protecting time to attend faculty devp Support to attend external faculty devp (APA, APPD, AAMC, COMSEP, etc) Support for faculty to get MEd, MPH, etc New faculty orientation/faculty devp FUTURE State

30. Short faculty devp pearls at cross campus meetings External speakers visit all campuses for workshops All GME faculty development Access to MSU observation resources/expertise Observation of faculty by peers, CQI FUTURE State

31. Inventory of speakers, faculty development resources throughout CHM (IM, FP, etc) Increased emphasis on Residents as Teachers; residents are MSU CHM clinical instructors – education about MSU CHM curriculum –Support for ACGME Chief Resident Camp/Conference More retreats for faculty/residents (not on weekends) FUTURE STATE

32. Moderated by Bill Stratbucker, M.D. Cross-Campus Collaboration

33. Must be “organic”, not forced Could be incentivized in scholarly work, for promotion, etc Chair role in faculty recruitment in Grand Rapids and Flint Need updated list of faculty, research interests, etc Cross-Campus Collaborations

34. Examples of collaboration: Schutte/Girotta/Mann partnership re: cleft lip and palate Vice Chairs of Research in Lansing (Gewolb) and Grand Rapids (Bachmann) Other collaborations: Grand Rounds, other teaching conferences, patient care, advocacy, global health, patient care Cross-Campus Collaborations

35. Moderated by B. Keith English, M.D. Faculty Recruitment and Retention

36. Recruiting and retaining outstanding faculty is the key to our future academic success Critical to recruit faculty who are interested in building cross-campus partnerships Faculty Recruitment and Retention

37. Retaining Top Faculty: The Nepenthe Principles “Modern Faculty Development: A Modern- Day Odyssey” –Beckerle, et al, Science Translational Medicine, 3: 1-3, 2011. Nepenthe -- an “antidote to suffering” in the Odyssey The goal is to enhance faculty fulfillment – better quality of live, satisfaction, retention, productivity – by using a carrot instead of a stick

38. Helping Faculty Thrive (Nepenthe Principles) 1.Value the contributions of individuals AND teams; the collaborative model 2.Nurture young faculty – mentoring is critical and the lack of effective faculty development is a powerful predictor of faculty dissatisfaction 3.Integrate the personal and the professional

39. Helping Faculty Thrive (Nepenthe Principles) 4.Create inclusive communities 5.Develop enlightened leaders – who promote fair and equitable treatment of faculty, transparent decision making, use of the Chair role in service to the department, building esprit de corps, fostering faculty career development