• B. Keith English, M.D.

• Departmental Meeting, Pediatrics and Human Development, 11/19/14

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

•Using AAMC Faculty Forward 2014 Survey Results for Departmental Planning

College of Human Medicine and Pediatrics and Human DevelopmentResults

Prepared by Donna Mulder

• Share AAMC Faculty Forward College and Department Results

• Discuss Action Planning Steps to Involve Department Faculty

Meeting Purpose

Gathering Faculty Feedbac

k

Communicating the Results

Using the survey

results for organization

al improveme

nt

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

CHM Participation Goals:o Assess status of faculty engagement in

the College

oUse survey results to address College-wide faculty engagement issues & concerns

oDevelop departmental-specific action plans to address faculty engagement issues & concerns based on survey results

CHM Goals

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

• 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

• 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

• 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

College of Human Medicine

Michigan State University

College-Wide Results

• Eligible faculty population: 256• Response rate: 69.1%• Faculty Forward cohort response rate: 62.5 %

CHM Response Rate

CHMResponse Rate

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 SatisfactionAll 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 ResultsSummary 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

42%

53%

72%

70%

76%

64%

72%

46%

62%

66%

67%

85%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Clinical Practice

Faculty Recruitment and …

Compensation and Benefits

Collegiality and Collaboration

Promotion Equality

Growth Opportunities

Relationship with Supervisor

Medical School Governance

Department Governance

Workplace Culture

Focus on Medical School …

My Job

CHM Top Issues & Concerns

Summary ScoreOur

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%

Highest ranked institutional areas of concern:

Department Results

Response Rate:• Eligible department population: 28• Departmental completion rate: 82%

Pediatrics and Human Development Results

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

All things considered, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your department as a place to work?

CHM Pediatrics Other CHM Clinical Department

All CHM Faculty0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

17% 15% 14%

17% 20%12%

65% 65%74%

Very Dissatisfied or Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied nor DissatisfiedVery Satisfied or Satisfied

Pediatrics: Global Satisfaction

Pediatrics: Benchmarking

Summary ScoreCHM

Pediatrics

Other CHM

ClinicalPediatrics

PeersPediatrics

Cohort  Top Two% Top Two% Top Two% Top Two%

My Job 76% 84% 78% 80%

Focus on Medical School Mission 59% 67% 62% 63%

Workplace Culture 59% 65% 57% 63%

Department Governance 50% 60% 52% 56%

Medical School Governance 35% 48% 47% 44%

Relationship with Supervisor 70% 73% 69% 72%

Growth Opportunities 62% 64% 57% 55%

Promotion Equality 76% 76% 73% 72%

Collegiality and Collaboration 61% 71% 71% 71%

Compensation and Benefits 60% 73% 59% 64%

Faculty Recruitment and Retention 36% 54% 58% 61%

Clinical Practice 31% 45% 42% 53%

Item Comparison Pediatrics Results to Other CHM Clinical Departments, Peer Institutions and Cohort

Top Five Areas of Concern with Benchmarking

Summary ScoreCHM

Pediatrics

Other CHM

ClinicalPediatrics

PeersPediatrics

CohortTop Two% Top Two% Top Two% Top Two%

Workplace Culture 59% 65% 57% 63%

Department Governance 50% 60% 52% 56%Faculty Recruitment and Retention 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”

• 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

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?

• 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

• Moderated by Mona Hanna-Attisha, M.D.

• Faculty Development– Clinician educators– Researchers

Faculty Development Session

• 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

Current 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)

FUTURE STATE

• Moderated by Bill Stratbucker, M.D.

Cross-Campus Collaboration

• 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

Cross-Campus Collaborations

• 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

Faculty Recruitment and Retention

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

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