Search

INTRODUCTION The Hedwig von Ameringen Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine program (ELAM) is a national professional development program for women that includes institutional action projects (IAPs). Although benefits of ELAM participation are well documented, the value of the IAPs has not been specifically evaluated. We explored the experience of ELAM Fellows and leaders from one institution to elucidate how institutional factors influence project implementation and outcomes. METHODS Fellows and deans participated in semistructured interviews. We analyzed the transcripts qualitatively to develop themes and describe factors that influenced IAP implementation and outcomes. We used the New World Kirkpatrick Model, an updated version of the widely used Kirkpatrick model of educational program evaluation, as a framework to elucidate how participants applied their leadership learning through project work, and to analyze early results of projects that indicated institutional impact. RESULTS Project work had bidirectional impact on the fellows in the program and on the institution itself. Project enablers included: focusing projects on institutional priorities, obtaining sustainable support, and navigating institutional complexity. Leading indicators of institutional outcomes included contributions to institutional leadership and culture, and mutual enhancement of the reputation of the fellow and of the institution. DISCUSSION By examining enablers and barriers for institutionally based projects conducted in a national leadership development program, we identified the drivers that facilitated application of leadership learning. Leading indicators of project outcomes reflected bidirectional impact on fellows and the institution, demonstrating outcomes at the highest levels of the New World Kirkpatrick Model.

INTRODUCTION Multisite and national professional development (PD) programs for educators are challenging to establish. Use of implementation science (IS) frameworks designed to convert evidence-based intervention methods into effective health care practice may help PD developers translate proven educational methods and models into successful, well-run programs. Implementation of the national Educational Scholars Program (ESP) is used to illustrate the value of the IS model. METHODS Four adaptable elements of IS are described: (1) replication of an evidence-based model, (2) systematic stages of implementation, (3) management of implementation using three implementation drivers, and (4) demonstration of program success through measures of fidelity to proven models and sustainability. RESULTS Implementation of the ESP was grounded on five established principles and methods for successful PD. The process was conducted in four IS stages over 10 years: Exploration, Installation, Initial Implementation, and Full Implementation. To ensure effective and efficient processes, attention to IS implementation drivers helped to manage organizational relationships, build competence in faculty and scholars, and address leadership challenges. We describe the ESP's fidelity to evidence-based structures and methods, and offer three examples of sustainability efforts that enabled achievement of targeted program outcomes, including academic productivity, strong networking, and career advancement of scholars. DISCUSSION Application of IS frameworks to program implementation may help other PD programs to translate evidence-based methods into interventions with enhanced impact. A PD program can follow systematic developmental stages and be operationalized by practical implementation drivers, thereby creating successful and sustainable interventions that promote the academic vitality of health professions educators.

Introduction: Mentoring is increasingly recognized as central to career development. Less attention has been paid, however, to how mentoring relationships evolve over time. To provide a more complete picture of these complex relationships, the authors explored mentoring from a mentee’s perspective within the context of a three-year faculty development program in which the mentor provided specific expertise to assist the mentee in completing a scholarly educational project. Methods: Using an evolving focus group design, the authors interviewed mentee groups in 2007–2009 inclusive. Transcripts were coded inductively; codes were revised as data patterns became more apparent. Preliminary assertions about the answers to guiding questions were made; the trustworthiness of the assertions was assessed via member check. Results: Mentees offered a variety of reasons for choosing their project mentor, including proximity, familiarity, and mentor expertise. There was a dyadic relationship with the project mentor in year 1, a broader collaboration with multiple senior mentors in year 2, and mentoring among program peers in year 3. Mentees benefitted from mentors’ supportive behaviors and, to a lesser extent, mentors’ challenging behaviors. Conclusion: Mentoring relationships, in the context of this faculty development program, tended not to be an exclusive dyadic connection but rather a constellation of relationships that evolved over time and included peer mentoring. The complex reality of these relationships challenges the application of traditional mentoring models and suggests unique considerations in developing mentoring programs designed to meet the needs of faculty in academic medicine.

Introduction: Mentoring is a central component of professional development. Evaluation of “successful” mentoring programs, however, has been limited and mainly focused on measures of satisfaction with the relationship. In today’s environment, mentoring programs must produce tangible outcomes to demonstrate success. To address this issue, the authors advance the framework of functional mentoring combined with measurement of outcomes at multiple levels. Methods: The mentoring program is embedded within an intensive, continuing medical education (CME) accredited faculty development program. Survey methodology is used to collect qualitative and quantitative data at the start, midpoint, and end of the program and longitudinally. Participants in 4 years of the program were surveyed. Results: In 4 years, 165 faculty participated in the program. Respondents were highly satisfied with the pairings: 85% of junior faculty believed their mentor had a significant effect on their projects. Junior faculty reported a significant enhancement of skills related to initiating and negotiating a new mentoring relationship (85%) and stated that their project would have a significant impact on their career (92%) and on the department or institution (86%). Discussion: The success of this mentoring program is demonstrated at multiple levels. The key outcome of functional mentoring is the project. Projects are aligned with professional responsibilities and with institutional missions. The project contributes to the individual’s dossier and adds value to the institution. Functional mentoring is a practical approach that allows measurable results at multiple levels.