P. N. Redlich1, T. A. DeRoon-Cassini1, R. Treat1, R. Spellecy1, M. Zarka1, M. A. Zimmerman1, T. P. Webb1, B. D. Lewis1, D. M. Gourlay1, G. Lomberk1, K. R. Brown1, M. F. Otterson1, D. B. Evans1, T. S. Wang1 1Medical College Of Wisconsin,Surgery,Milwaukee, WI, USA
Introduction: Faculty represent the most important asset of academic departments. Effective faculty mentoring is the cornerstone of career success. Studies have demonstrated the importance of mentoring, yet only half of surgical departments have mentoring programs. Our department sought to enhance its mentoring program by establishing a formal Mentoring Committee (MC) in 2016 to supplement support by the Chair and Division Chiefs. The goals of this study were to obtain junior faculty perceptions on mentoring and their perceived value of the MC. In addition, senior faculty participation in the MC was tracked as a measure of interest in, and support of, junior faculty mentoring.
Methods:
The MC was constituted to have broad representation with 11 senior faculty members from 8 Divisions and one from another academic department. Concomitant with the formation of the MC, a questionnaire (Survey 1) was sent to all assistant and associate professors surveying demographics, perceived mentoring components, and past mentoring experiences. Assistant professors (both newly hired [NH] and those beyond their first year [BFY]) met individually with the MC. Attendance at meetings was recorded, including MC members and invited mentors of NH faculty. The MC reviewed the mentee’s current and planned clinical, academic and professional activities while providing detailed feedback, guidance, and support in a 45-60-minute session. Comprehensive minutes were provided within 2-3 weeks along with a post-meeting survey (Survey 2) to include invited feedback. Both surveys were constructed using a Likert scale from 1-5 (5=strongly agree; most important). Significance was determined by the Mann-Whitney U-test.
Results:
Survey 1 had a response rate of 44% (14/32). Highest rated items defining mentoring were: professional development advice (5.0 [median]), support in societies (5.0), support of scholarly projects (5.0), and assisting with research (4.0). Over 2 years, 10 BFY and 16 NH assistant professors met with the MC. Survey 2 had a response rate of 100% (26/26). The highest rated items included: information provided was valuable (5.0), meeting time allotted was sufficient (5.0), and post-meeting communications were helpful (5.0). “Pre-meeting materials were helpful” was rated higher by NH faculty (4.0 vs 3.5, p=0.011) whereas “meeting time allotted was sufficient” was rated higher by BFY faculty (5.0 vs 4.5, p=0.04). The mean number of senior faculty who attended meetings was 6.3 (SD=1.6; range 4-11).
Conclusion:
A formal MC was well-received by junior faculty and enthusiastically supported by senior faculty. A focused meeting of the MC devoted to an individual faculty member has created a visible symbol of the importance of career mentoring. Interest from other departments has provided impetus for enhanced mentoring across the institution. Long-term evaluation of specific outcomes of our MC is ongoing.