I Want To...
I Want To...
Find Research Faculty
Enter the last name, specialty or keyword for your search below.
School of Medicine
I Want to...
Share this page: More
Minutes: June 17, 2008
382nd MEETING OF THE MEDICAL SCHOOL COUNCIL
3 p.m., Wednesday, June 17, 2009
School of Medicine Administration, Board Room 103
PRESENT: Drs. Abuav, Armstrong, Barker, Brayton, Chou, Chuck, Cooke, Cromwell, Fine, Herman, Ishii, Maragakis, McCarthy, McGrath-Morrow, Molinaro, Pidcock, Regan, Sargent, Schramm, Wong, Myron Yaster, Mss. Fairman, and Foy.
ABSENT: Drs. Allaf, Bennett, Bergles, DeLeon, Efron, Flynn, Goldstein, Green, Halushka, Huang, Leahy, Magaziner, Mooney, Pomerantz , Reading, Resar, Robinson, Stivers, Tompkins, Tufaro, Yehia, Zhen, Messrs. Chen, Feng, and Pirruccello, Mss. Bruno, Oliver and Nguyen,
GUESTS: Messrs. Natterman and Marrow, Ms. Heiser
The minutes of the May 6, 2009 meeting were approved.
II. Exit Process Report – Lisa Heiser, Assistant Dean for Faculty
Ms. Heiser presented pilot year data on faculty exit interviews. Survey questions were developed by working groups with Medical School Council representation. Benchmarking with other medical schools with exit interview processes was undertaken. A three-part exit process consisting of an on-line exit survey, in-person exit interviews, and follow up phone interviews was developed. The on-line survey went live in June 2007 and faculty leaving between May 2007 and June 2008 were queried. Of 82 leaving in 2007/2008, 30 completed the survey. The on-line survey was in four parts: Section I Primary Reason for Leaving; Section II Career and Life Factors that Influenced Decision to Leave; Section III Job Related Challenges/Problems that Influenced Decision to Leave; and Section IV Optional Demographic Questions.
The in-person interview allowed the faculty member to provide a comprehensive overview of the faculty member’s reason for leaving. The follow up phone interview will be implemented after the 18 month pilot phase is completed in 2009.
Respondents were 62% male and 38% female; 17% held the ranks of Professor and Associate Professor and 83% Instructor and Assistant Professor.
Primary reasons for leaving related to family/personal reasons, lack of advancement/better opportunities elsewhere, poor departmental support, salary, and terminal contracts. Factors identified to retain faculty included bridge funding, better financial support, more value placed on clinical work and teaching, better mentoring, and improvements to the clinical and administrative infrastructure. The primary immediate professional plans included accepting a position in another academic medical center, government position, and private practice. Career and life factors that influenced faculty to leave included personal concerns, salary and benefits, family/life concerns, and better advancement opportunities elsewhere. Men indicated advancement opportunities and women, family and life concerns as primary reason for leaving. Major job related challenges identified included stress, role overload, time to promotion, and compensation and benefits.
There were 13 in-person exit interviews conducted. Themes emerging from the interviews included worklife balance issues, dissatisfaction with leadership, poor mentoring, lack of collegial environment, compensation, diversity climate, promotion path not supported, work not valued, and lack of support for entrepreneurs.
In summary, faculty voluntarily resigned primarily because of life and career concerns and faculty leaving because of terminal contracts experienced more job-related challenges.
The exit interview findings lead to two important recommendations: 1) Develop ways to retain valued faculty who might consider voluntarily leaving in the future and; 2) Develop better criteria and selection process for faculty who are recruited and clearly articulate expectations at time of recruitment. Better mentoring, improved performance feedback, and competitive compensation are essential elements in maintaining faculty.
Ms Heiser responded to several questions and thanked the Council for the opportunity to present the report. Dr. Armstrong thanked Ms. Heiser for her presentation.
III. Medical Malpractice Protective Measures – Jeff Natterman, Risk Manager, JHHS/JHH
Mr. Natterson presented an overview of the costs associated each year with malpractice settlements and malpractice premiums and measures faculty can take to limit exposure. He addressed some of the most common mistakes such as “wrong site procedures” that are costly to the institution as well as to the patient. Components of the 1996 HIPAA legislation and its impact if not followed was also discussed. Documentation was identified as the number one reason cases are lost. Legible, accurate, complete, and timely documentation was emphasized when completing the medical record. He encouraged faculty to become familiar with the rules of Informed Consent and to seek assistance if confronted with other legal documents such as contracts, wills, subpoenas, affidavits, etc.
After a brief Q&A session, Dr. Armstrong thanked Mr. Natterman for his presentation.
IV. CME in Transition – Victor Marrow, Director of Funded Programs
The Continuing Medical Education Office of Funded Programs (OFP) deals with securing funding from industry while protecting the Hopkins name. The OFP has a 24 member advisory board that has a seminal role in approving all courses. All activities under the OFP are produced under the direction of a full time faculty member who is responsible for the academic content and for ensuring that content is free from bias or the appearance of bias for or against any commercial interest.
Dr. Marrow reviewed the Hopkins requirements for funded activities. If a course proposal is accepted funding is awarded to JHU similar to a research grant. Hopkins maintains full control of content and selection of faculty. No promotional activities are permitted and social activity is limited and under control of the OFP. There are stringent guidelines concerning financial relationships between participating faculty and the funding entity. The policies governing relationships with industry strive for transparency.
Dr. Morrow reported that annually, $25 million in grants are secured by the OFP which returns a $1 million profit that is shared by the OFP and the departments that sponsor programs.
Data was presented on recent surveys that reported 97% of participants viewed material to be objective, balanced, and free from commercial bias; 73% noted OFP activities as superior to other CME programs; and 46% stated they planned to change their practices as a result of participating in the OFP activity.
Dr. Morrow distributed a guide listing 18 case studies relating CME interaction with industry that was prepared for faculty and course directors.
Dr. Armstrong thanked Dr. Morrow for his presentation.
V. Other Business
There being no further business this meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
Mary E. Foy
Future Medical School Council meetings:
All meetings will be held in the School of Medicine Board Room (SOM 103), 3:00 to 5:00 p.m.
Sept 16, 2009
Oct. 21, 2009
Nov. 11, 2009
Dec. 9, 2009
Jan. 20, 2010
Feb. 17, 2010
Mar. 24, 2010
Apr. 21, 2010
May 26, 2010
June 23, 2010