PAEA Annual Education Forum Friday October 17, 2014; Philadelphia, PA Session #F118

Transcription

1 PAEA Annual Education Forum Friday October 17, 2014; Philadelphia, PA Session #F118 Theresa Hegmann, MPAS, PA- C Clinical Professor, Dept. of Physician Assistant Studies & Services Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine

2 PA faculty recruited from clinical practice encounter many barriers to success in academia There is a nationwide shortage of experienced PA faculty, worsened by high attrition (about 11% leaving in )* frustrated early- career educators often choose to return to clinical practice (2 nd most often reported reason, reported by 19.9%)* *Physician Assistant Education Association. Twenty-Eighth Annual Report on Physician Assistant Educational Programs in the Unitied States, PAEA; April 2014

3 To address this problem, PAEA s Research Institute developed a nation- wide Mentorship Program in 2009 Program ran June 2010 June vetted mentors recruited 33 early- career faculty signed on as mentors All signed a detailed LOA outlining expectations Controlled, prospective evaluation project initiated at the same time

4 Of 33 mentees enrolled: 17 matched with a mentor 7 participated to varying extent 10 never contacted mentor 16 placed on waitlist control group 5 withdrew from Mentorship Program 3 left PA education entirely Overall Results: 59% of matched participants did not contact mentors 24% of enrolled mentees withdrew from program 9.1% left PA education entirely NSD in scholarly productivity or confidence levels between groups Time devoted to scholarship at midpoint correlated strongly with # papers (Pearson 0.830, p<. 0001) Why such low participation? Those who participated were positive about the structure & administration of the program so what went wrong?

5 Mainly qualitative inquiry into barriers to utilization of the Mentorship Program initiated in March, 2014 IRB exempt status, ID#

6 Brief anonymous online survey (Qualtrics) was sent to all 33 original mentee participants E- mail addresses obtained through extensive search of public sources and social media (program websites, Facebook, Linked In, etc); many had changed employment Only 23 e- mail addresses were valid (70%); the others bounced repeatedly Two reminders were sent, approximately 2 and 4 weeks after the original; survey closed at 6 weeks Questionnaire was designed to investigate broad categories of potential barriers to participation Free- text responses elicited about: Why those who participated were motivated to do so Perceived barriers to participation Recommended changes / improvements

7 Overall Response rate: 14/33 = 42% 61% of those with valid e- mail addresses responded Not bad for 3 year time gap 12 had been matched immediately 2 on waiting list; 1 matched w/ mentor in June 2011 and 1 declined: too busy 9 reported repeated contact with their mentor However, in 2011, only 7 mentors reported having been contacted by their mentee!

8 Generally very positive: I was deeply interested in gaining a better understanding of the publishing process and felt that it was important for me to make use of this mentorship opportunity. I know that it was a limited resource. My mentor guided me in the design and implementation of a research project at my institution. This required several conversations via phone and over the course of two years. We are still in contact today with regards to this particular research project.

9 Analysis of free- text responses: 5 categories identified: Lack of time / busy with higher priority responsibilities (teaching & clinical service): n = 7 Lack of structure/unclear expectations/lack of accountability or end- product: n = 5 Mentor seemed busy or uninterested: n = 3 Communication problems (time zone, e- mail, etc): n = 3 Miscellaneous program design problems: n = 2

10 Biggest barrier is by far lack of support from my institution. Teaching load and service to the program/university far outweigh research time/ opportunity. The mentorship program with PAEA helped "legitimize" my interest in research which allowed for some clearing of my schedule. Without the mentorship program, I'm not sure I would have been give this time. If there was some way that the Mentorship Program could have a mentee involved in an actual project, I think that would be helpful, especially for those of us that are in newer programs where scholarship is not yet a priority. I joined as a new faculty hoping to learn how to produce new and valuable information for my peers. PA program encouraged the idea of research but did not provide any actual support (time, $, staff assistance) or incentive for it (pay raise, tenure). So, between learning to teach and continuing my clinical work, researching would have amounted to a hobby. (With two careers and a family, I didn't have time for a hobby.)

11 1. Provide funding in the form of a stipend or travel to meet with mentor (n = 11) 2. Change the selection process (n = 9) Make it competitive with stipend & recognition Require a draft project idea 3. Widen program scope beyond scholarship (n = 8)

12 Many limitations to this project (e.g. response rate, sample size, methodology ), but still useful information The need for effective mentoring in PA education still exists probably will actually grow over time Growing number of new programs, greater need for new faculty, proportionally fewer experienced faculty Continued problem with turnover > 23% report career advancement, but nearly as many (20%) return to clinical role* Key contribution of a PAEA- sponsored national mentoring program might be to increase the perceived legitimacy of program release time for pursuit of scholarship

13 Considerations for future mentoring initiatives: Competitive selection process & recognition of successful applicants Inclusion of a scholarly product (or other concrete outcome) à clear expectations! Stipend support Travel funding to facilitate face time with mentor Widen the scope beyond scholarship