Departmental Meeting,
Pediatrics and Human
Development, 11/19/14
• B. Keith English, M.D.
Agenda Items
1. Summary of “Faculty
Forward” survey results
2. Quick Update on APR
Process
3. Updates from the CrossCampus Retreat held on
11/1/14
Using AAMC Faculty Forward 2014 Survey
Results for Departmental Planning
College of Human Medicine
and Pediatrics and Human Development
Results
Prepared by Donna Mulder
Meeting Purpose
• Share AAMC Faculty Forward College and
Department Results
• Discuss Action Planning Steps to Involve
Department Faculty
Faculty Forward Program
• 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
Gathering
Faculty
Feedback
Communicati
ng the Results
Using the
survey results
for
organizational
improvement
Interpreting
the Results
CHM Goals
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
Definition of Faculty Engagement
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.
Method: Survey Administration
• Several U.S. medical schools have participated in Faculty Forward.
• We chose 4 schools as “peers” for benchmarking as highlighted in RED below:
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
Method: Survey Administration
• 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
Confidentiality of Faculty Forward
• 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
College of Human Medicine
Michigan State University
College-Wide Results
CHM Response Rate
CHM
Response Rate
• Eligible faculty population: 256
• Response rate: 69.1%
• Faculty Forward cohort response rate: 62.5 %
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
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
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
My Job
85%
Focus on Medical School…
67%
Workplace Culture
66%
Department Governance
62%
Medical School Governance
46%
Relationship with Supervisor
72%
Growth Opportunities
64%
Promotion Equality
76%
Collegiality and Collaboration
70%
Compensation and Benefits
72%
Faculty Recruitment and…
53%
Clinical Practice
42%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
CHM Top Issues & Concerns
Highest ranked institutional areas of concern:
Summary Score
Our
Institution
Peers
Top Two% Top Two%
Department Governance
62%
63%
Medical School Governance
46%
51%
Growth Opportunities
64%
64%
Faculty Recruitment and Retention
53%
60%
Clinical Practice
42%
50%
Department Results
Pediatrics and Human Development
Results
Response Rate:
• Eligible department population: 28
• Departmental completion rate: 82%
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
Pediatrics: Global Satisfaction
All things considered, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your
department as a place to work?
100%
80%
65%
65%
17%
20%
17%
15%
14%
CHM Pediatrics
Other CHM Clinical
Department
All CHM Faculty
60%
74%
40%
20%
12%
0%
Very Dissatisfied or Dissatisfied
Very Satisfied or Satisfied
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
Pediatrics: Benchmarking
Item Comparison Pediatrics Results to
Other CHM Clinical Departments, Peer Institutions and Cohort
Summary Score
CHM
Pediatrics
Other
CHM Pediatrics Pediatrics
Clinical
Peers
Cohort
Top Two%
Top Two% Top Two% Top Two%
My Job
Focus on Medical School Mission
Workplace Culture
Department Governance
Medical School Governance
Relationship with Supervisor
Growth Opportunities
Promotion Equality
Collegiality and Collaboration
Compensation and Benefits
Faculty Recruitment and Retention
76%
59%
59%
50%
35%
70%
62%
76%
61%
60%
36%
84%
67%
65%
60%
48%
73%
64%
76%
71%
73%
54%
78%
62%
57%
52%
47%
69%
57%
73%
71%
59%
58%
80%
63%
63%
56%
44%
72%
55%
72%
71%
64%
61%
Clinical Practice
31%
45%
42%
53%
Top Five Areas of Concern with Benchmarking
Other
CHM
CHM Pediatrics Pediatrics
Pediatrics Clinical
Peers
Cohort
Summary Score
Top Two%
Top Two%
Top Two%
Top Two%
Workplace Culture
59%
65%
57%
63%
Department Governance
Faculty Recruitment and
Retention
50%
60%
52%
56%
36%
54%
58%
61%
Medical School Governance
35%
48%
47%
44%
Clinical Practice
31%
45%
42%
53%
Note: Summary scores do not include “I don’t know” or “Not Applicable”
CHM Task Force Members
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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.
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
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?
Summary of Cross-Campus Retreat 11/1/14
• Updates from APR Working Groups
• Breakout sessions on:
-Faculty Development,
-Cross-Campus Collaboration
-Recruiting and Retaining Faculty
Faculty Development Session
• Moderated by Mona
Hanna-Attisha, M.D.
• Faculty Development
– Clinician educators
– Researchers
Current State
• 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
• Minimal research faculty devp
– Better for tenure faculty
• Role of mentorship
FUTURE State
• 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
• 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
• 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)
Cross-Campus Collaboration
• Moderated by Bill
Stratbucker, M.D.
Cross-Campus Collaborations
• 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
• 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
Faculty Recruitment and Retention
• Moderated by B. Keith
English, M.D.
Faculty Recruitment and Retention
• 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
Retaining Top Faculty: The
Nepenthe Principles
• “Modern Faculty Development: A ModernDay 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
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
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