Dataset Information

The impact of active mentorship: results from a survey of faculty in the Department of Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital.

ABSTRACT: To assess mentorship experiences among the faculty of a large academic department of medicine and to examine how those experiences relate to academic advancement and job satisfaction.Among faculty members in the Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Medicine, we assessed personal and professional characteristics as well as job satisfaction and examined their relationship with two mentorship dimensions: (1) currently have a mentor and (2) role as a mentor. We also developed a mentorship quality score and examined the relationship of each mentorship variable to academic advancement and job satisfaction.553/988 (56.0%) of eligible participants responded. 64.9% reported currently having a mentor, of whom 21.3% provided their mentor a low quality score; 66.6% reported serving as a mentor to others. Faculty with a current mentor had a 3.50-fold increased odds of serving as a mentor to others (OR 3.50, 95% CI 1.84-6.67, p < 0.001). Faculty who reported their mentorship as high quality had a decreased likelihood of being stalled in rank (OR 0.28, 95% CI: 0.10-0.78, p = 0.02) and an increased likelihood of high job satisfaction (OR 3.91, 95% CI 1.77-8.63, p < 0.001) compared with those who reported their mentorship of low quality; further, having a low mentorship score had a similar relationship to job satisfaction as not having a mentor.A majority of faculty survey respondents had mentorship, though not all of it of high caliber. Because quality mentorship significantly and substantially impacts both academic progress and job satisfaction, efforts devoted to improve the adoption and the quality of mentorship should be prioritized.

SUBMITTER: Walensky RP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5948924 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGeneral internal medicine (GIM) careers are increasingly viewed as challenging and unsustainable.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess academic GIM worklife and determine remediable predictors of stress and burnout.DesignWe conducted an email survey.ParticipantsPhysicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants in 15 GIM divisions participated.Main measuresA ten-item survey queried stress, burnout, and work conditions such as electronic medical record (EMR) challenges. An open-ended question assessed stressors and solutions. Results were categorized into burnout, high stress, high control, chaos, good teamwork, high values alignment, documentation time pressure, and excessive home EMR use. Frequencies were determined for national data, Veterans Affairs (VA) versus civilian populations, and hospitalist versus ambulatory roles. A General Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) evaluated associations with burnout. A formal content analysis was performed for open-ended question responses.Key resultsOf 1235 clinicians sampled, 579 responded (47 %). High stress was present in 67 %, with 38 % burned out (burnout range 10-56 % by division). Half of respondents had low work control, 60 % reported high documentation time pressure, half described too much home EMR time, and most reported very busy or chaotic workplaces. Two-thirds felt aligned with departmental leaders' values, and three-quarters were satisfied with teamwork. Burnout was associated with high stress, low work control, and low values alignment with leaders (all p < 0.001). The 45 VA faculty had less burnout than civilian counterparts (17 % vs. 40 %, p < 0.05). Hospitalists described better teamwork than ambulatory clinicians and fewer hospitalists noted documentation time pressure (both p < 0.001). Key themes from the qualitative analysis were short visits, insufficient support staff, a Relative Value Unit mentality, documentation time pressure, and undervaluing education.ConclusionsWhile GIM divisions overall demonstrate high stress and burnout, division rates vary widely. Sustainability efforts within GIM could focus on visit length, staff support, schedule control, clinic chaos, and EMR stress.

Project description:Unlabelled: The last decade in oncology has witnessed impressive response rates with targeted therapies, largely because of collaborative efforts at understanding tumor biology and careful patient selection based on molecular fingerprinting of the tumor. Consequently, there has been a push toward routine molecular genotyping of tumors, and large precision medicine-based clinical trials have been launched to match therapy to the molecular alteration seen in a tumor. However, selecting the "right drug" for an individual patient in clinic is a complex decision-making process, including analytical interpretation of the report, consideration of the importance of the molecular alteration in driving growth of the tumor, tumor heterogeneity, the availability of a matched targeted therapy, efficacy and toxicity considerations of the targeted therapy (compared with standard therapy), and reimbursement issues. In this article, we review the key considerations involved in clinical decision making while reviewing a molecular genotyping report. We present the case of a 67-year-old postmenopausal female with metastatic estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer, whose tumor progressed on multiple endocrine therapies. Molecular genotyping of the metastatic lesion revealed the presence of an ESR1 mutation (encoding p.Tyr537Asn), which was absent in the primary tumor. The same ESR1 mutation was also detected in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) extracted from her blood. The general approach for interpretation of genotyping results, the clinical significance of the specific mutation in the particular cancer, potential strategies to target the pathway, and implications for clinical practice are reviewed in this article.Key pointsER+ breast tumors are known to undergo genomic evolution during treatment with the acquisition of new mutations that confer resistance to treatment.ESR1 mutations in the ligand-binding domain of ER can lead to a ligand-independent, constitutively active form of ER and mediate resistance to aromatase inhibitors.ESR1 mutations may be detected by genomic sequencing of tissue biopsies of the metastatic tumor or by sequencing the circulating tumor cells or tumor DNA (ctDNA).Sequencing results may lead to a therapeutic "match" with an existing FDA-approved drug or match with an experimental agent that fits the clinical setting.

Project description:PurposeAlthough mentorship has been associated with promotion, job satisfaction, and retention, data are limited on the mentorship experience of clinical- versus research-track physicians as well as feasibility and relative priority of formal program components.Methods and materialsWithin a single-institution, multi-site, academic network, we implemented a Radiation Oncology AcaDemic Mentorship Program (ROADMAP) for junior faculty. Validated surveys assessing mentee satisfaction were distributed at baseline and 1 year. The statistical analysis included Wilcoxon rank sum and signed tests. Mentees assessed the likelihood to recommend each program component (10-point Likert-type scale), and means with standard error (SE) are reported.ResultsAmong 42 eligible junior faculty, 36 (86%) opted into the program. The median time since residency was 2.5 years (interquartile range, 1.75-5.25) on the clinical track (n = 12) and 3 years (interquartile range, 2.75-5.00) on the research track (n = 24). At baseline, research-track physicians reported higher satisfaction with mentoring than physicians on the clinical track (2.92 vs 2.16; P = .02). Among 32 physicians completing 1 year, overall satisfaction with mentoring increased compared with baseline (2.72 vs 3.87; P < .001), which persisted on subset analysis for both clinical- (2.16 vs 4.03; P < .001) and research-track physicians (2.99 vs 3.77; P = .005). At 1 year, 28 mentees (88%) opted to continue the program. Program components were rated 8.25 (SE, 0.37) for mentor-mentee pairings, 7.22 (SE, 0.39) for goal setting, 6.84 (SE, 0.47) for administrative support, 6.69 (SE, 0.44) for peer mentoring, and 6.53 (SE, 0.45) for steering committee oversight. Ratings of peer mentoring were not associated with track (P = .59) or years in practice (P = .29).ConclusionsClinical-track physicians may be less satisfied with mentorship than research-track faculty. However, all junior faculty, regardless of track, appeared to benefit from formalizing dyadic mentor-mentee relationships, goal setting, and peer mentoring. Further work is needed to determine the role of mentorship in addressing physician burnout.

Dataset Information

The impact of active mentorship: results from a survey of faculty in the Department of Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets