The clinician educator career in oncology.

11022 Background: There has been progress in both the definition of the work of a clinician educator (CE) and the skillset required. The CE career pathway has not been studied in oncology. Our aim is to study the current state of oncologists’ identification as a CE and their perceptions of the barriers and enablers for a CE career. Methods: A 27-item cross-sectional survey was completed by ASCO program directors (PDs) and associate/assistant PDs (APDs). The survey asked about their current career and perceptions about CE careers including barriers/enablers. Prior to distribution, the survey was reviewed by experts in oncology education and approved by the ASCO Education Council. Frequency statistics are presented. Results: Eighty-eight of 297 PDs/APDs responded (30%). 70 (80%) perceived CE as a viable career track, 48 (55%) had a CE track available to faculty at their institution and 72 (82%) considered themselves as a CE. Most PDs/APDs (59; 67%) reported no formal medical education training for their trainees and the majority (67; 76%) did not have a CE track for their fellows. While medical education responsibilities are perceived to be common amongst graduates (39% reporting >50% of graduates), 59 (67%) of PDs/APDs reported <10% of their trainees pursue medical education as a research focus. Compared to clinical, laboratory or discovery research, 71 (81%) of PDs/APDs felt their fellows were less or significantly less prepared for a career in education research. Table highlights the perceived barriers/enablers to a CE career. Conclusions: Many PDs/APDs perceive themselves as clinician educators. However, little to no formal education training currently exists to identify and nurture trainees into careers in education. Identification of training milestones in education and establishing guidelines for academic promotion for CEs in oncology are needed.[Table: see text]

Guiding Academic Clinician Educators at Research-Intensive Institutions: a Framework for Chairs, Chiefs, and Mentors

Department chairs and division chiefs at research-intensive academic medical centers often find mentoring clinician educators challenging. These faculty constitute the majority of academic physicians. Supporting excellent clinician educators is key to ensuring high-quality patient care and developing tomorrow’s physicians. Little has been written for leaders on strategies to advance academic clinician educators’ career success. We present a framework to guide chairs, chiefs, and mentors seeking to address clinician educator retention and satisfaction in academic medical centers.

Empowering qualities and skills for leaders in neurosurgery

Neurosurgeons may have multiple roles including clinician, educator, researcher, and administrator. Leaders in neurosurgery have the added responsibilities of setting a vision, communicating the vision, implementing a plan to achieve it, and gaining commitment from the team and other stakeholders. For success in the current era of U.S. health care, neurosurgical leaders must deliver despite challenges such as reduced resources, increased protocolized care, automation, and depersonalization. In this work, we describe five empowering strategies that can help leaders perform best. The steps include deepening self-awareness, leading with honesty, developing emotional intelligence, improving coaching skills, and becoming a better influencer. Leaders that take these steps to invest in their leadership skills will reap broad benefits.

134. idweek Clinician Educator Mentoring Program for Junior Faculty

Background Effective career mentorship enhances well-being, productivity, and advancement in academic medicine. The pathway to success for clinician educators (CE) is often ill-defined. Career development resources and support for this pathway vary across institutions. To address this need, we created a mentoring program pairing junior faculty pursuing careers as CEs with more experienced CEs from other institutions during IDWeek 2018 and 2019. Methods Prior to IDWeek 2018 and 2019, a survey was sent through the IDSA listserv to identify members pursuing CE careers interested in extra-institutional career mentorship. These faculty were paired with mentors who were established career CEs identified via the IDSA Medical Education Workgroup. Mentees completed a brief individual development plan (IDP) and identified 3 discussion topics. Mentors received the mentee’s IDP and CV prior to IDWeek and were given brief guidance on successful mentoring. One hour advising sessions were held during IDWeek and ended with the creation of a mentee action plan and a scheduled follow-up call. Post-participation surveys were sent to mentees and mentors. Results 31 different mentees and 15 mentors participated in the program over two years. 26 (84%) mentees completed the post-session survey. 25 (96%) mentees and 14 (93%) mentors reported being very satisfied with their meetings at IDWeek. All mentees created an action plan with their mentor. 16 (62%) strongly agreed and 10 (38%) somewhat agreed that they planned to make changes based on the meeting. 21 (81%) mentees strongly agreed they received advice they were unable to get at their own institution. After the session, 18 (69%) strongly agreed they felt connected to a supportive CE community at IDSA; none strongly agreed in the pre-survey. All mentors and mentees agreed that this program was a resource that IDSA should consider expanding. Qualitative response themes from mentees emphasized the usefulness of an external perspective. Conclusion A mentoring program for junior faculty during IDWeek was feasible and effective for CEs. Through these interactions, mentees planned changes to enhance their careers and felt newly supported by the IDSA community. This model could be used for other ID career paths at future meetings. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures