Search

Background Mentoring is considered a fundamental component of career success and satisfaction in academic medicine. However, there is no national standard for faculty mentoring in academic emergency medicine and a paucity of literature on the subject. Objectives To conduct a descriptive study of faculty mentoring programs and practices in academic departments of emergency medicine. Methods An electronic survey instrument was sent to 135 department chairs of emergency medicine (EM) in the United States. The survey queried faculty demographics, mentoring practices, structure, training, expectations, and outcome measures. Chi-square and Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests were used to compare metrics of mentoring effectiveness (i.e., number of publications and NIH funding) across mentoring variables of interest. Results Thirty-nine of 135 departments completed the survey, with a heterogeneous mix of faculty classifications. While only 43.6% of departments had formal mentoring programs, many augmented faculty mentoring with project or skills based mentoring (66.7%), peer mentoring (53.8%), and mentoring committees (18%). Although the majority of departments expected faculty to participate in mentoring relationships, only half offered some form of mentoring training. The mean number of faculty publications per department per year was 52.8, and eleven departments fell within the top 35 NIH funded EM departments. There was an association between higher levels of perceived mentoring success and both higher NIH funding (p=0.022) and higher departmental publications rates (p=0.022). In addition, higher NIH funding was associated with mentoring relationships that were assigned (80%), self-identified (20%), or mixed (22%), (p=0.026). Conclusions Our findings help to characterize the variability of faculty mentoring in EM, identify opportunities for improvement, and underscore the need to learn from other successful mentoring programs. This study can serve as a basis to share mentoring practices and stimulate conversation around strategies to improve faculty mentoring in EM. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

he objective was to report the results of a survey conducted jointly by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and the Association of Academic Chairs in Emergency Medicine (AACEM) of faculty salaries, benefits, work hours, and department demographics for institutions sponsoring residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Residency Review Committee for Emergency Medicine (RRC-EM).Data represent information collected for the 2009-2010 academic year through an electronic survey developed by SAEM and AACEM and distributed by the Office for Survey Research at the University of Michigan to all emergency department (ED) chairs and chiefs at institutions sponsoring accredited residency programs. Information was collected regarding faculty salaries and benefits; clinical and nonclinical work hours; sources of department income and department expenses; and selected demographic information regarding faculty, EDs, and hospitals. Salary data were sorted by program geographic region and faculty characteristics such as training and board certification, academic rank, department title, and sex. Demographic data were analyzed with regard to numerous criteria, including ED staffing levels, patient volumes and length of stay, income sources, salary incentive components, research funding, and specific type and value of fringe benefits offered. Data were compared with previous SAEM studies and the most recent faculty salary survey conducted by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).Ninety-four of 155 programs (61%) responded, yielding salary data on 1,644 faculty, of whom 1,515 (92%) worked full-time. The mean salary for all faculty nationwide was $237,884, with the mean ranging from $232,819 to $246,853 depending on geographic region. The mean salary for first-year faculty nationwide was $204,833. Benefits had an estimated mean value of $48,915 for all faculty, with the mean ranging from $37,813 to $55,346 depending on geographic region. The following factors are associated with higher salaries: emergency medicine (EM) residency training and board certification, fellowship training in toxicology and hyperbaric medicine, higher academic rank, male sex, and living in the western and southern regions. Full-time EM faculty work an average of 20 to 23 clinical hours and 16 to 19 nonclinical hours per week.The salaries for full-time EM faculty reported in this survey were higher than those found in the AAMC survey for the same time period in the majority of categories for both academic rank and geographic region. On average, female faculty are paid 10% to 13% less than their male counterparts. Full-time EM faculty work an average of 20 to 23 clinical hours and 16 to 19 nonclinical hours per week, which is similar to the work hours reported in previous SAEM surveys.

Academic physicians must be able to access the resources necessary to support their ongoing professional development and meet requirements for continued academic advancement. The authors sought to determine the self-perceived career development needs of junior clinical faculty in emergency medicine (EM) and the availability of educational resources to meet those needs.An educational "needs assessment" survey was distributed to 954 American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) members listed in the ACEP database as being faculty at EM residency programs in the United States and having graduated from an EM residency within the past 7 years. Respondents were asked to rank the importance of 22 areas of faculty development to their own professional growth and then to indicate whether educational resources in each area were available to them. Respondents were also asked to note the educational formats they prefer. A search for currently available resources in each topic area was undertaken and compared to the survey results.A total of 240 responses were received. Self-perceived career development needs were identified in the following areas: bedside teaching, lecture development, business skills, managerial skills, educational research, mentorship and career counseling, interpersonal skills, leadership skills, scholarly writing skills, physician wellness, and knowledge of the faculty development process. While a review of currently available educational resources revealed lectures, conferences, and online materials pertinent to most of these topics, a relative lack of resources in the areas of mentorship and physician wellness was identified.Junior clinical faculty in EM perceive a lack of educational resources in a number of areas of faculty development. The academic community of EM should strive to improve awareness of and access to currently existing resources and to develop additional resources to address the area of physician wellness. The lack of mentorship in academic EM continues to be a problem in search of a solution.

We were unable to validate the predictive ability of a previously described mneumonic (SAD PERSONS score, SPS) for determining the need for hospitalization of patients who have expressed suicidal ideation or behavior. After reviewing published studies on the subject, we arrived at a modification of this scale (MSPS). The MSPS obtained by nonpsychiatric and psychiatric house staff was compared and correlated with patient disposition for 100 consecutive adult patients presenting to the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center emergency department for the assessment of suicidal behavior. We were unable to correlate the MSPS with patient disposition. However, four criteria were found to correlate with the need for hospitalization (P less than .001). After weighting the MSPS, giving two points for each of these four criteria, and one point for each of the other six, we found that a score of greater than or equal to 6 had a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 71% in identifying need for hospitalization. A score of less than or equal to 5 had a negative predictive value for hospitalization of 95%. When two nonsuicidal patients, admitted for situational reasons only, were eliminated, a score of greater than or equal to 6 had a 100% sensitivity and a score of less than or equal to 5 had a 100% negative predictive value in identifying patients requiring hospitalization. Subsequent use of the weighted MSPS for an additional 82 patients confirmed these results. Follow-up of 97.5% (116/119) of all patients discharged from the emergency department at 6 to 12 months found no mortalities. Using a weighted MSPS, nonpsychiatrists can quickly and easily obtain the objective information necessary to make an initial assessment of suicidality.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)