scholarly journals Common pathways to Dean of Medicine at U.S. medical schools

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. e0249078
Author(s):  
Clare E. Jacobson ◽  
Whitney H. Beeler ◽  
Kent A. Griffith ◽  
Terence R. Flotte ◽  
Carrie L. Byington ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical School ◽  
Department Chair ◽  
Department Chairs ◽  
Study Cohort ◽  
Common Pathway ◽  
Associate Deans ◽  
Associate Dean ◽  
Online Databases ◽  
Prior Service ◽  
Curriculum Vitae

Purpose We sought to evaluate common leadership experiences and academic achievements obtained by current U.S. Medical School Deans of Medicine (DOMs) prior to their first appointment as Dean in order to elucidate a common pathway for promotion. Methods In April-June 2019 the authors requested a curriculum vitae from each of the 153 LCME-accredited U.S. Medical School DOMs. The authors abstracted data on prior appointments, demographics, and achievements from CVs and online databases. Differences by gender and institutional rank were then evaluated by the Fisher’s exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Results CVs were obtained for 62% of DOMs (95 of 153), with women comprising 16% of the responding cohort (15/95). Prior to appointment as DOM, 34% of respondents had served as both permanent Department Chair and Associate Dean, 39% as permanent Department Chair but not Associate Dean, and 17% as Associate Deans but not permanent Department Chair. There was a non-significant trend for men to have been more likely to have been a permanent Department Chair (76% vs 53%, p = 0.11) and less likely to have been an Associate Dean (48% vs 67%, p = 0.26) compared to women. Responding DOMs at Top-25 research institutions were mostly male (15/16), more likely to have been appointed before 2010 (38% vs 14%, p = 0.025), and had higher H-indices (mean (SD): 73.1 (32.3) vs 33.5 (22.5), p<0.01) than non-Top-25 Deans. Conclusions The most common pathway to DOM in this study cohort was prior service as Department Chair. This suggests that diversification among Department Chair positions or expansion of search criteria to seek leaders from pools other than Department Chairs may facilitate increased diversity, equity, and inclusion among DOM overall.

scholarly journals A cross-sectional study of neurosurgical department chairs in the United States

2018 ◽  
Vol 129 (5) ◽  
pp. 1342-1348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick M. Flanigan ◽  
Arman Jahangiri ◽  
Joshua L. Golubovsky ◽  
Jaret M. Karnuta ◽  
Francis J. May ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
San Francisco ◽  
Residency Program ◽  
Department Chair ◽  
Department Chairs ◽  
Temporal Trends ◽  
The United States ◽  
Advanced Degrees ◽  
Over Time

OBJECTIVEThe position of neurosurgery department chair undergoes constant evolution as the health care landscape changes. The authors’ aim in this paper was to characterize career attributes of neurosurgery department chairs in order to define temporal trends in qualities being sought in neurosurgical leaders. Specifically, they investigated the hypothesis that increased qualifications in the form of additional advanced degrees and research acumen are becoming more common in recently hired chairs, possibly related to the increased complexity of their role.METHODSThe authors performed a retrospective study in which they collected data on 105 neurosurgeons who were neurosurgery department chairs as of December 31, 2016, at accredited academic institutions with a neurosurgery residency program in the United States. Descriptive data on the career of neurosurgery chairs, such as the residency program attended, primary subspecialty focus, and age at which they accepted their position as chair, were collected.RESULTSThe median age and number of years in practice postresidency of neurosurgery chairs on acceptance of the position were 47 years (range 36–63 years) and 14 years (range 6–33 years), respectively, and 87% (n = 91) were first-time chairs. The median duration that chairs had been holding their positions as of December 31, 2016, was 10 years (range 1–34 years). The most common subspecialties were vascular (35%) and tumor/skull base (27%), although the tendency to hire from these specialties diminished over time (p = 0.02). More recently hired chairs were more likely to be older (p = 0.02), have more publications (p = 0.007), and have higher h-indices (p < 0.001) at the time of hire. Prior to being named chair, 13% (n = 14) had a PhD, 4% (n = 4) had an MBA, and 23% (n = 24) were awarded a National Institutes of Health R01 grant, tendencies that were stable over time (p = 0.09–0.23), although when additional degrees were analyzed as a binary variable, chairs hired in 2010 or after were more likely to have an MBA and/or PhD versus those hired before 2010 (26% vs 10%, p = 0.04). The 3 most common residency programs attended by the neurosurgery chairs were Massachusetts General Hospital (n = 8, 8%), University of California, San Francisco (n = 8, 8%), and University of Michigan (n = 6, 6%). Most chairs (n = 63, 61%) attended residency at the institution and/or were staff at the institution before they were named chair, a tendency that persisted over time (p = 0.86).CONCLUSIONSMost neurosurgery department chairs matriculated into the position before the age of 50 years and, despite selection processes usually involving a national search, most chairs had a previous affiliation with the department, a phenomenon that has been relatively stable over time. In recent years, a large increase has occurred in the proportion of chairs with additional advanced degrees and more extensive research experience, underscoring how neurosurgical leadership has come to require scientific skills and the ability to procure grants, as well as the financial skills needed to navigate the ever-changing financial health care landscape.

scholarly journals P078: An environmental scan of quality improvement and patient safety activities in emergency medicine in Canada

CJEM ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
pp. S91
Author(s):  
E. Kwok ◽  
J. Perry ◽  
S. Mondoux ◽  
L. Chartier
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Medical School ◽  
Department Chairs ◽  
National Level ◽  
Teaching Hospitals ◽  
Canadian Medical School ◽  
Environmental Scan ◽  
Funding Model ◽  
Academic Scholarship

Introduction: Quality improvement and patient safety (QIPS) activities in healthcare have become increasingly important, but it is unclear what the current national landscape is with regards to how individual EM departments are supporting QIPS activities and evaluating their success and sustainability. We sought to assess how Canadian medical school EM departments/divisions and major Canadian teaching hospitals approach QIPS programs and efforts, with regards to training, available infrastructure, education, scholarly activities, and perceived needs. Methods: We developed 2 electronic surveys through expert panel consensus to assess important themes identified by the CAEP QIPS Committee, including a)formal training/skill capacity; b)operational infrastructure; c)educational activities; d)academic and scholarship, and e)perceived gaps and needs. Surveys were pilot-tested and revised by authors. “Survey 1” (21 questions) was sent by email to all 17 Canadian medical school affiliated EM Department Chairs and Academic Hospitals Department Chiefs; “Survey 2” (33 questions) to 11 identified local QIPS leads in these hospitals. This was followed by 2 monthly email reminders to participate in the survey. We present descriptive statistics including proportions, means, medians and ranges where appropriate. Results: 22/70 (31.4%) Department Chairs/Chiefs completed Survey 1. Most (81.8%) reported formal positions dedicated to QIPS activities within their groups, with a mixed funding model. Less than half of these positions have dedicated logistical support. 11/12 (91.7%) local QIPS leads completed Survey 2. Two-thirds (63.6%) reported explicit QIPS topics within residency curricula, but only 9.1% described QIPS training for staff physicians. 45% of respondents described successful academic scholarship output, with the total number of peer-reviewed QIPS-related publications per center ranging from 1-10 over the past 5 years. A minority of participants reported access to academic supports: methodologists (27.3%), administrative personnel (27.3%), and statisticians (9.1%). Conclusion: This environmental scan provides a snapshot of QIPS activities in EM across academic centers in Canada. We found significant local educational and academic efforts, although there is a discrepancy between the level of formal support/infrastructure and such activities. There remains opportunity to further advance QIPS efforts on a national level, as well as advocating and supporting local QIPS activities.

scholarly journals 2557 Improving ClinicalTrials.gov compliance: A coordinated effort for success

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 83-83
Author(s):  
Scott Patton ◽  
Elaine Basaca ◽  
Jennifer S. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Department Chairs ◽  
Compliance Rate ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Stanford University ◽  
Senior Leadership ◽  
Associate Dean ◽  
Results Reporting ◽  
Nih Policy ◽  
High Degree

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: ClinicalTrials.gov (CTgov) compliance has received much international attention as a significant regulatory, scientific, and ethical responsibility. Compliance rates for both industry and academia are held up for scrutiny by transparency advocates, but solutions for achieving compliance in academia have proven to be—because of its focus on innovation and multiple disciplines—significantly more complex than those employed by industry. Added challenges for academic medical centers (AMCs) are both increased researcher responsibilities under the new NIH Policy on Clinical Trial Dissemination and system-wide changes to requirements for “clinical trial only” Funding Opportunity Announcements. At Stanford University, a multifaceted approach toward improving CTgov outreach, education, and reporting led to a dramatic turnaround in compliance over 17-month period. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Stanford University School of Medicine’s Senior Associate Dean for Research and PI of Stanford’s CTSA applied a 3-part strategy to address unacceptable rates of results reporting. The strategy included (1) regular compliance reports to department chairs, (2) establishment of a central office, Clinical Research Quality (CRQ), to provide consistent training and support, and (3) interdepartmental cooperation across the school and university. Compliance reports, identifying all studies late for results reporting were sent monthly to all department chairs, with heightened focus on departments that conduct the most clinical trials. Senior leadership described the process in executive meetings and set improvement goals. Reports included multiple data points to help departments mobilize resources and identify trends; half-way through the period, soon-to-be late study records were included. CRQ hired 2 fulltime employees tasked with all aspects of managing the CTgov process and designed a portfolio of activities including: (1) a master list of all Stanford studies in the CTgov system; (2) a process for generating and distributing monthly reports; (3) an education program; and (4) support services, including an administrator working group. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Since December 2015, Stanford has had the second-highest compliance rate improvement out of the 20 schools of medicine that receive the most NIH funding (+ 62%). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Managing ClinicalTrials.gov compliance requires a high degree of technical knowledge of regulations, NIH policy, and the CTgov system. But without an equally high degree of engagement from senior leadership, results would not have been achieved. Central resources are critical to set policy and establish consistent processes, but without regular and repeated interactions between faculty, a multitude of administrators and staff, more central resources would have been required. By working simultaneously “down from the top” and “up from the bottom,” communication and education expanded rapidly, ineffective efforts were quickly transformed, and what began as an irritating and cumbersome problem became an occasion for collaboration and celebration of increased transparency.

Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs Principles of Lifelong Learning in Pediatric Medicine

2016 ◽  
Vol 170 (11) ◽  
pp. 1087 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie P. Opipari ◽  
Stephen R. Daniels ◽  
Robert W. Wilmott ◽  
Richard F. Jacobs
Keyword(s):  
Medical School ◽  
Lifelong Learning ◽  
Department Chairs ◽  
Pediatric Medicine ◽  
Pediatric Department

scholarly journals The Changing Role of the Department Chair in the Shifting Landscape of Higher Education

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 175
Author(s):  
Lisa D. Weaver ◽  
Katherine Ely ◽  
Loretta Dickson ◽  
Jennifer DellAntonio
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Department Chair ◽  
Department Chairs ◽  
Related Stress ◽  
Training And Support ◽  
Job Related Stress ◽  
Changing Role ◽  
And Training

Historically, empirical research exploring the roles, responsibilities, and challenges of department chairs has been limited and narrow in scope. In addition, these studies have not kept pace with the rapidly changing nature of higher education. The current study consists of data collected from a survey of current and former chairs at a small, rural university in Pennsylvania. Questions in the survey included topics such as dealing with bureaucracy, lack of time for individual research, job-related stress, dealing with noncollegial faculty, excessive workload, and training for department chairs. Findings are in line with previous empirical research and illustrate the need for evidence-based decisions regarding the nature of academic department chair leadership training and support. 

scholarly journals Administrative Perceptions Regarding Supervision of Online Teaching and Learning

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 674
Author(s):  
Michael Schwanenberger ◽  
Mary Dereshiwsky ◽  
Laura Sujo-Montes
Keyword(s):  
Online Teaching ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Department Chairs ◽  
Maximum Efficiency ◽  
Degree Programs ◽  
Technology Support ◽  
Associate Deans ◽  
Qualitative Research Design ◽  
Depth Interviews ◽  
Levels Of Support

Deans, associate deans, and department chairs in higher education institutions manage not only their departments’ course offerings but also faculty and students who teach and learn both in person and online. Possessing a good understanding of how to plan, supervise, and evaluate online degree programs for maximum efficiency, optimum student learning, and optimum faculty support is imperative for these professionals. The purpose of this study was to investigate administrators’ perceptions, attitudes, and experiences managing various online learning environments. A basic qualitative research design was applied to this study. Current and former administrators were invited to participate in individual in-depth interviews that were transcribed and analyzed for emerging themes. Results indicated that administrators need multiple levels of support, including supervisor’s support as well as instructional and technology support, among others. It is concluded that administrators find themselves in “a continuum” in terms of the need for different types of support. Implications for further research are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document