1 / 21

CME Research: What does the evidence tell us?

CME Research: What does the evidence tell us?. Mentoring: What is the evidence that mentoring is an effective modality for learning? What are the pre-requisites for a successful mentoring program?. Luanne E. Thorndyke, MD

donar
Download Presentation

CME Research: What does the evidence tell us?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CME Research: What does the evidence tell us? Mentoring: • What is the evidence that mentoring is an effective modality for learning? • What are the pre-requisites for a successful mentoring program? Luanne E. Thorndyke, MD Associate Dean for Professional Development Penn State College of Medicine

  2. Mentoring is a central component of professional development • A supportive relationship • A teaching-learning process • Involves coaching, role-modeling, motivating, assessing, feedback • Often involves sponsoring, promoting

  3. Individual Professional socialization Career development Faculty advancement Career satisfaction Institutional Enhanced productivity Retention Engagement of faculty Sustained institutional vitality Effective mentoring enhances both individuals & institutions

  4. Traditional mentoring focuses on the relationship between mentor and protégé • Great variability in mentoring programs • Outcomes usually focus on establishment of a “successful” relationship • Evaluation usually ‘short term’ and descriptive of pairing process and logistical components of the program • Level 1 outcomes: participation/satisfaction

  5. “GAPS” in the literature • “Success” in mentoring programs not usually defined • Evaluation often limited, short-term • Method for measuring success not standardized • Data lacking on longitudinal impact and influence on career success of participants in structured mentoring programs

  6. Functional Mentoring* is an alternative paradigm for mentoring programs * Thorndyke, Gusic, Milner. Functional Mentoring: A Practical Approach with Multilevel Outcomes. JCEHP, 28(3):157-164, 2008.

  7. Junior Faculty Development Program Luanne E. Thorndyke, MD Maryellen Gusic, MD Robert Milner, PhD

  8. There are three goals for the JFDP: • to promote the development and advancement of faculty of the PSUCOM through a program tailored to the specific needs of junior faculty. • to nurture and cultivate junior faculty to become the next generation of academic leaders. • to support the retention of native faculty talent through opportunities to continuously build and expand professional skills.

  9. The JFDP consists of two components: a curriculum in professional development and a mentored project Curriculum: topics in education, research, clinical practice and career development Mentored project: completed with the guidance of a senior faculty mentor • project appropriate to faculty assignment • a new mentoring relationship

  10. The projects provide an important opportunity for scholarship • Mentor guides mentee on project through regular interactions • junior faculty report how the results of their projects will be disseminated (scholarship) • scholarly product is particularly important for clinical faculty • projects represent the outcome of a successful mentoring relationship Mentor-mentee expectations are defined in the description of the Mentoring Program

  11. Junior Faculty* 78 MD, 31 PhD, 8 MD/PhD, 1 DVM 47 female, 71 male 18/23 departments 11 did not graduate Mentors* 44 MD, 33 PhD or other degree 11 female, 66 male 21/23 departments+ other PSU campuses 28 mentors served more than once 129 junior faculty have participated; 77 mentors helped since 2003 *Participation mirrors institution-wide faculty demographics

  12. JFDP Projects: 2003-2008 Research — 66/118 (56%) • submitting grant application (21) • developing & pursuing research projects (43) • research administration, outreach (2) Education — 41/118 (35%) • creating new courses or curricula (34) • developing new educational techniques (7) Clinical — 11/118 (9%) • establishing new clinical service lines

  13. Functional Mentoring* enables assessment at multiple levels * Thorndyke, Gusic, Milner. Functional mentoring: a practical approach with multilevel outcomes. JCEHP, 28(3):157-164, 2008.

  14. Change in Behavior Modification of Attitudes Acquisition of Knowledge/Skills Learner’s Reactions Participation Kirkpatrick’s model for multi-level evaluation of training programs Change in Organizational Practice Morrison, J. ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: Evaluation. BMJ 326: 385 (2003)

  15. Levels of an Outcomes-based CME Evaluation Model* • Participation • Satisfaction • Learning • Performance • Patient health • Population health *Moore DE. A framework for outcomes evaluation in the continuing professional development of physicians.

  16. Functional mentoring evaluation: Outcomes at multiple levels • Participation • Reaction and Satisfaction • Impact of the mentoring relationship • Skill development • Individual Project (evidence of transfer/performance in practice) • Impact of the project on the individual (career advancement) and beyond (institution, profession, patients)

  17. Results of short- and intermediate-term evaluation (5 year follow-up)* • High satisfaction • Mentors had significant impact on projects • Some impact beyond projects • Mentoring led to skill development • Mentoring program enhanced ability to make new mentoring relationships • Projects established new ventures • Projects impacted individual careers *Thorndyke, Gusic, Milner. Functional Mentoring: A Practical Approach with Multilevel Outcomes. JCEHP, 28(3):157-164, 2008.

  18. In summary . . . • The JFDP and the mentoring program is perceived as a valuable educational experience by participants and mentors • Participants perceive mentoring to be valuable • About 50% of mentees surveyed have a continuing relationship with their mentors • Functional mentoring provides an effective framework for institutional mentoring programs.

  19. Still more to come… • Longitudinal data, obtained up to 18 months after program completion, are “preliminary” in that data will be collected for 5 years post completion of the program. • Long-term effects of the program on career advancement cannot be assessed within the time frame of this study. • We are currently investigating the long term outcomes of the projects and their impact on individual career success and on the institution.

  20. What are the pre-requisites for successful mentoring programs? • Structure and flexibility • Defined expectations • Tangible outcomes • Tacit and explicit institutional support • Reward and recognition • Administrative commitment • A scholarly approach to the evaluation process

  21. Acknowledgements • Maryellen Gusic, MD • Associate Dean for Clinical Education Professor of Pediatrics • Co-Director, Jr. Faculty Development Program • Robert Milner, PhD • Director, Office of Post-Doctoral Affairs Professor of Neural & Behavioral Sciences • Co-Director, Jr. Faculty Development Program

More Related