Role of Mentors in Undergraduate and Postgraduate Training

A career in academic medicine may take years to develop, as the skills it requires are often not taught at an early stage. Having a committed mentor is always a privilege and valuable to the students in medicine. Given the wide variety of mentoring relationships, they are broadly classified as formal and informal according to the way in which the relationship is formed. Mentoring relationships usually evolve in stages to ensure competencies are met before the mentees progress to the next part of their mentoring process. “Mentoring up” is a concept that empowers mentees to be active participants in their mentoring relationships. Also, the mentoring needs vary depending on the stage of professional development. Mentors have 7 roles to perform in this relationship. Despite the advantages, the mentoring process faces the challenges like unrealistic expectations from the mentees, lack of training and time constraint among the clinician educators, and so on. The challenges can be overcome by building structured mentorship programs, by organizing the faculty development programs, use of virtual platforms to facilitate the meeting and providing the academic recognition/financial incentives to the mentors providing the exemplary service.

85. A Virtual Platform for Mentoring Clinician Educators at IDWeek is as Effective as In-Person

Background Career mentorship for clinician educators (CE) may be difficult to obtain within one’s home institution. During IDWeek 2018 and 2019, a mentoring program pairing junior faculty pursuing careers as CEs with more experienced CEs from other institutions was found to be feasible and effective. During IDWeek 2020, the program was transitioned to a virtual format. We assessed the feasibility and efficacy of this virtual mentoring program. Methods Junior and established CEs were recruited through the IDSA listserv and Medical Education Community of Practice and paired. Mentees completed an individual development plan (IDP) and identified discussion topics for their meeting. Mentors received training on successful mentoring and their mentee’s IDP and CV prior to meeting. Mentor and mentees met via videoconference for one hour during IDWeek 2020, created an action plan, and scheduled a follow-up call. Post-participation surveys were sent to mentees and mentors. Results 30 mentor and mentee pairs were matched; 1 pair did not meet. Compared to IDWeek 2018 (17) and 2019 (20), the 2020 program had more mentees (30). 24 (80%) mentees completed the pre-session survey; 17 (59%) mentees and 20 (69%) mentors completed the post-session survey. When compared to survey results from mentees in 2018-19 who met in-person, mentees in the virtual format reported similarly high rates of satisfaction, planned to make changes at work, had an increase in confidence, and felt it was a valuable experience (Table 1). Mentors also reported high rates of satisfaction with the experience in 2020 and were likely to participate in the program next year (Table 2). Only 1 (6%) mentee reported that the virtual format negatively impacted their experience, although 6 (30%) mentors reported some negative impact of the virtual format (Table 3). Table 1. Post-session mentee survey responses across 2 in-person years (2018, 2019) compared to the virtual mentoring program (2020) Table 2. Post-session mentor survey responses across 2 in-person years (2018, 2019) compared to the virtual mentoring program (2020) Table 3. Experience of mentees and mentors with the 2020 virtual mentoring program Conclusion A virtual mentoring program for CEs was feasible and as effective for mentees as an in-person format. Some mentors felt that the virtual nature did negatively impact the experience although it had minimal negative impact on mentees. Disclosures David J. Riedel, MD, MPH , Gilead (Advisor or Review Panel member)ViiV (Advisor or Review Panel member) Vera Luther, MD, Nothing to disclose Wendy Armstrong, MD, Nothing to disclose Brian Schwartz, MD, Nothing to disclose

Does being a coach benefit clinician-educators? A mixed methods study of faculty self-efficacy, job satisfaction and burnout

Introduction Coaching is a growing clinician-educator role. Self-efficacy is a powerful faculty motivator that is associated positively with job satisfaction and negatively with burnout. This study examines self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and burnout in coaches and other clinician-educators. Methods We conducted a mixed methods study using a quantitative survey followed by qualitative interviews of faculty at the University of California, San Francisco. Coaches (funded 20% full-time equivalents), faculty with other funded education positions (“funded”), and faculty without funded education positions (“unfunded”) completed a 48-item survey addressing self-efficacy (teaching, professional development, and scholarship), job satisfaction, and burnout. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance followed by post-hoc tests and chi-square tests. To elaborate quantitative results, we conducted qualitative interviews of 15 faculty and analyzed data using framework analysis. Results 202 of 384 faculty (52.6%) responded to the survey; 187 complete surveys were analyzed. Teaching self-efficacy was similar across groups. Coaches and funded educators had significantly higher professional development self-efficacy and job satisfaction than unfunded educators. Burnout was more prevalent in coaches and unfunded educators. Qualitative analysis yielded three themes: sources of reward, academic identity, and strategies to mitigate burnout. Educator roles provide reward that enhances self-efficacy and job satisfaction but also generate competing demands. Coaches cited challenges in forming professional identities and working with struggling learners. Discussion The coaching role provides faculty with benefits similar to other funded educator roles, but the particular demands of the coach role may contribute to burnout.

Guiding Academic Clinician Educators at Research-Intensive Institutions: a Framework for Chairs, Chiefs, and Mentors

Department chairs and division chiefs at research-intensive academic medical centers often find mentoring clinician educators challenging. These faculty constitute the majority of academic physicians. Supporting excellent clinician educators is key to ensuring high-quality patient care and developing tomorrow’s physicians. Little has been written for leaders on strategies to advance academic clinician educators’ career success. We present a framework to guide chairs, chiefs, and mentors seeking to address clinician educator retention and satisfaction in academic medical centers.

Current and Future Geriatrics Education Policy Initiatives

Current and future NAGE policy-related activities will be the focus of this presentation. The Geriatric Academic Career Awards (GACAs), which support the career development of junior faculty clinician educators in geriatrics, were reinstituted by HRSA in 2019 after a 13-year absence. We will discuss the role of this award in the broader context of geriatrics education and GWEPs, how GACA awardees have been integrated into NAGE, and the need for expansion of the GACA program to support both the GWEP and geriatric education pipelines. Areas for future NAGE engagement will be focused on advocacy efforts to support: permanent GWEP reauthorization by Congress; expanding current level of $40.737 million to $51 million to enable HRSA to increase the number of GWEPS to further extend their reach; increasing funding for GACA awardees; and strengthening the synergies between the GACA and GWEP programs to support development of future GWEP leadership.