Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges
-
Effective mentoring is an important component of academic success. Few programs exist to both improve the effectiveness of established mentors and cultivate a multispecialty mentoring community. In 2008, in response to a faculty survey on mentoring, leaders at Brigham and Women's Hospital developed the Faculty Mentoring Leadership Program as a peer learning experience for midcareer and senior faculty physician and scientist mentors to enhance their skills and leadership in mentoring and create a supportive community of mentors. ⋯ In response to postsession and postcourse (both immediately and after six months) self-assessments, participants reported substantive gains in their mentoring confidence and effectiveness, experienced a renewed sense of enthusiasm for mentoring, and took initial steps to build a diverse network of mentoring relationships. In this article, the authors describe the rationale, design, implementation, assessment, and ongoing impact of this innovative faculty mentoring leadership program. They also share lessons learned for other institutions that are contemplating developing a similar faculty mentoring program.
-
Beginning in December 2012, all UK doctors will be required to complete a periodic revalidation process conducted by the General Medical Council (GMC) to retain their licence to practise medicine. Regular appraisals, based on the GMC's core guidance for doctors, will be used by responsible officers to evaluate a doctor's practice based on six types of supporting information. ⋯ This commentary by the Chair of the GMC expands on the research in this issue by Wright and colleagues to provide an overview of the history of revalidation in the United Kingdom, discuss the role of appraisal in revalidation, and examine the need for and value of MSF in this process. The author highlights the support that the GMC has received from UK patient organizations and ends by focusing on the benefits of revalidation and the expectations for its development in the future.
-
The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health convened a working group in June 2011 to examine alternative institutional review board (IRB) models. The working group was held in response to proposed changes in the regulations for government-supported research and the proliferation of multicenter clinical trials where multiple individual reviews may be inefficient. Group members included experts in heart, lung, and blood research, research oversight, bioethics, health economics, regulations, and information technology (IT). ⋯ Participants noted research gaps in IRB best practices and in metrics. The group arrived at recommendations for process changes, such as defining specific IRB performance requirements in funding announcements, requiring funded researchers to use more efficient alternative IRB models, and developing IT systems to facilitate information sharing and collaboration among IRBs. Despite the success of the National Cancer Institute's central IRB (CIRB), the working group, concerned about the creation costs and unknown cost-efficiency of a new CIRB, and about the risk of shifting the burden of dealing with multiple IRBs from sponsors to research institutions, did not recommend the creation of an NHLBI-funded CIRB.
-
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 created the Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education (THCGME) program to provide graduate medical education (GME) funding directly to community-based health centers that expand or establish new primary care residency programs. The THCGME program was the legislation's only new investment in GME, and it represents a significant departure from the Medicare GME funding system. ⋯ The THCs plan to evaluate and report resident performance, patient quality of care, and graduate outcomes. The work of the first THCs has implications for primary care training, the GME system, and future policies and legislation aimed at strengthening the health care workforce.
-
Medical schools conduct research, provide clinical care, and educate future physicians and scientists. Each school has its own unique mix of revenue sources and expense sharing among the medical school, faculty practice plan(s), parent university, and affiliated hospital(s). Despite these differences, revenues from clinical care subsidize the money-losing research and education missions at every medical school. ⋯ They summarize where medical school revenues come from, how revenues and expenses flow within a medical school and between a medical school and its partners, and why understanding this process is crucial to leading and managing such an enterprise. They conclude with recommendations for medical schools to consider in developing funds flow models that meet their individual needs and circumstances: (1) understand economic drivers, (2) reward desired behaviors, (3) enable every unit to generate a positive margin, (4) communicate budget priorities, financial performance, and the use of institutional resources, and (5) establish principles for sharing resources and allocating expenses among entities within the institution. Medical schools should develop funds flow models that are transparent, aligned with their strategic priorities, and reward the behaviors necessary to produce effective collaboration within and across mission areas.