Clinical Track Faculty Research Articles

Committed to Success: A Structured Mentoring Program for Clinically Oriented Physicians

ObjectiveTo examine impacts of a structured mentorship committee program on academic promotion and participant perceptions because impacts of formal mentorship programs for clinical faculty are unknown. Participants and MethodsThis prospective cohort study at a Midwestern Veterans Affairs tertiary care system from December 17, 2019 to December 31, 2022 included clinical track faculty in the Medicine Service below the rank of Clinical Associate Professor. Mentoring meetings (mentee, committee chair, and mentors) were generally held twice annually. All participants were surveyed after each meeting (response rate: 100%). ResultsAll 23 of 23 (100%) eligible faculty were enrolled as mentees, and 49 distinct meetings occurred. Three (13%) mentees were promoted, and the remaining 20 (87%) continued in the program. Mean scores (SD), scaled 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), for mentors and mentees were 4.71 (0.51) and 4.80 (0.54) for “effective use of my time”; 4.58 (0.64) and 4.37 (0.49) for “appropriate progress since last meeting”; 4.52 (0.66) and 4.31 (0.64) for “program increased my work satisfaction”; and 4.07 (0.96) and 3.75 (0.92) for “program reduced my work burnout,” respectively. ConclusionClinically oriented physicians viewed the program positively. It appeared to help junior faculty get promoted and led to improved work satisfaction and reduced burnout.

Equity and inclusivity in the faculty ranks: Our experience with a clinical track

BackgroundThe evolution of nursing education requires a combination of strong academic faculty and expert clinicians. Different professional growth and development pathways are necessary to build a robust faculty with clinical and research expertise. Some schools have implemented a formal clinical track (CT) to complement the traditional tenure track for the professional advancement of CT. MethodsThe article presents a case example of how one institution maintains and advances a strong CT using the Kotter Change Model and discusses future directions. ResultsThe school's infrastructure for promotion, which follows a similar structure and guidelines as Tenure Track (TT) Promotion and Tenure Guidelines, has led to an increase in the school's scholarly productivity among CT faculty across ranks. Increasing poster and podium presentations as well as publications to a national and international audience results in greater reach and improved reputation for the school, both nationally and internationally. ConclusionsWhile there is still work to be done to advance equity and inclusion for nursing CTs, developing and maintaining a CT with system-level structures holds significant value and provides a clear path to promotion, invests in clinical scholarship, and includes clinical faculty as full citizens in academia.

Publishing on a Shoestring: Understanding Barriers, Challenges, and Unique Opportunities to Academic Productivity in Psychiatry.

Clinical track faculty within psychiatry may struggle to meet goals for academic scholarship, particularly publishing. In this review, we explore potential barriers to publication and solutions to support early career psychiatrists. Current evidence highlights challenges for faculty throughout academic practice, including barriers at the individual and systems levels. Within psychiatry, publication has favored biological studies with significant gaps in the literature serving as both an opportunity and challenge. Interventions underscore the importance of mentorship and propose incentivization to facilitate academic scholarship among clinical track faculty. Barriers to publication within psychiatry exist at the level of the individual, system, and field itself. This review shares potential solutions from across the medical literature and an example of an intervention from our own department. More studies are needed within the field of psychiatry to understand how to best support early career faculty members in their academic productivity, growth, and development.

Clinical Pharmacy Faculty Provision of Direct Patient Care, Challenges, and Opportunities.

The quadripartite mission of clinical track faculty members involves research, teaching, services, and direct patient care. However, the extent of faculty involvement in direct patient care remains a challenge. Thus, the study's objective is to evaluate the effort spent on direct patient care by clinical faculty of pharmacy schools in Saudi Arabia (S.A.) and identify factors that hinder or facilitate providing direct patient care services. This multi-institutional, cross-sectional questionnaire study conducted between July 2021 and March 2022 involved several pharmacy schools' clinical pharmacy faculty members in S.A. The primary outcome was the percentage of time/effort spent on patient care services and other academic responsibilities. The secondary outcomes were the factors affecting the effort spent on direct patient care and the barriers preventing the provision of clinical services. A total of 44 faculty members took the survey. The percentage of effort spent on clinical education was highest at a median (IQR) of 37.5 (30, 50), followed by that spent on patient care [19 (10, 28.75)]. The percentages of effort spent on education and the length of academic experience were negatively associated with efforts spent on direct patient care. The most commonly reported barrier affecting fulfilling patient care duties was the lack of a clear practice policy (68%). Although most clinical pharmacy faculty members were involved in direct patient care, half of them devoted only 20% or less of their time to it. An effective effort allocation for clinical faculty duties will require the development of a clinical faculty workload model that sets realistic expectations about the time spent on clinical and non-clinical duties.

A Mentoring Workgroup for Academic Role Transition Among Clinical-Track Nursing Faculty.

With the current ongoing nurse faculty shortage, mentorship can aid in career advancement, promotion, and retention for clinical assistant professors (CAPs) when hiring clinical-track faculty. The organization, experiences, and outcomes of a CAP mentorship workgroup within a multi-campus research-intensive college of nursing are described. The CAP mentorship workgroup was guided by senior faculty and met monthly to provide CAPs with a better understanding of the promotion process, motivation to pursue scholarship, and peer support. Through this workgroup, seven CAPs have completed their probationary review process, two CAPs are in the process of being promoted to clinical associate professors, and more than 90% of CAPs have been retained. Mentorship for clinical-track faculty can positively influence faculty productivity and aid in CAP retention, which contributes to the success of nursing programs. [J Nurs Educ. 2023;62(3):183-186.].

Faculty Scholarship at an Academic Health System

Objectives: To determine the number of published papers per faculty member and percent of faculty with published papers during the FY 21 academic year at an allopathic medical school stratified by department, academic rank, sex, and academic track. Methods: Published papers from 449 tenure track faculty (351 males, 98 females) and 721 clinical track faculty (364 males, 357 females) were analyzed. Findings: 71.0% of tenure track faculty (69.5% of males, 76.5% of females) and 32.3% of clinical track faculty (39.3% of males, 25.2% of females) published a first/last author paper, and 88.6% of tenure track faculty (88.6% of males, 88.8% of females) vs 54.9% of clinical track faculty (60.7% of males, 49.0% of females) published an authored paper. The percentage of faculty publishing at least one first/last author paper stratified by academic rank was 59.4%, 45.8%, and 37.9% for Professor (61.8% of males, 52.5% of females), Associate Professor (51.0% of males, 37.3% of females), and Assistant Professor (47.3% of males, 28.7% of females), respectively. For tenure track faculty, the median number of published first/last author papers and total number of papers by sex was 1 and 4 for males, while it was 1.5 and 4 for females. For clinical track faculty, the median number of published first/last author papers and total number of papers by sex was 0 and 1 for males, and 0 and 0 for females. The three departments with the highest percentage of faculty with published papers were Urology, Neurosurgery, and Microbiology/Immunology. Conclusions: Tenure track faculty published more papers than clinical track faculty both in terms of quantity and in terms of percentage of faculty with authored papers. A greater percentage of male faculty published papers than female faculty in the clinical track but not the tenure track. Likewise, a greater percentage of faculty at higher academic ranks published papers.

Shifting Culture by Creating Synergy and Equity Through the Unification of Tenure Criteria.

Tenure requirements within universities vary; however, most focus on excellence in teaching, service, and scholarship. Within our university, faculty with either research or clinical doctorates were on both tenure and clinical tracks, with reported marginalization from clinical track faculty. A task force was convened in 2018 to develop a unified single track that included a single set of criteria for all College of Health Professions faculty to obtain tenure. The Six Sigma DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control) Roadmap was used to guide the work of the task force. The implementation of a single track has influenced discourse around previous notions regarding what is considered "tenure worthy" and has opened the door to contractual equity among faculty. Internal structures, such as implementation of a single track, can support cohesion and productivity that facilitates collaborations among faculty of all ranks and degree backgrounds, promoting a culture that continues to embrace intellectual discourse and unity. [J Nurs Educ. 2022;61(8):455-459.].

Increasing Pediatricians' Scholarly Productivity on and off the Tenure Track.

Physician faculty have increasingly been appointed to nontenure track positions, which provide limited support for scholarly activity. We evaluated how a centralized departmental research group affected the scholarly productivity of faculty on and off the tenure track. A research team providing both mentorship and logistical study support was implemented in 2018. We identified a pre-intervention cohort of physician faculty employed in July 2016, and a postintervention cohort, employed in July 2018. A publication search was conducted for these cohorts in the period 2017 to 2018 and 2019 to 2020, respectively. Seventy-five faculty were included in the analysis, with approximately two-thirds appointed on the clinical (nontenure) track. In the pre-intervention cohort (n = 59), 15 faculty (25%) had at least one publication in the period 2017 to 2018. In the postintervention cohort (n = 59), 33 faculty (56%) published at least one article in the period 2019 to 2020 (P = .001). Multivariable random-effects regression analysis confirmed that postintervention, odds of publishing in a given year increased for both clinical-track and tenure-track faculty. Both clinical and tenure-track faculty contribute to the academic mission at medical schools, yet scholarly activity is supported and rewarded for tenure-track faculty more often than for clinical-track faculty. Our centralized research team successfully fostered scholarly activity among both clinical-track and tenure-track faculty.

What Does It Mean to Be a Clinical Track Faculty Member in Public Health? A Survey of Clinical Track Faculty Across the United States.

The clinical professor track has expanded and reflects a trend toward hiring non-tenure-track faculty in public health; however, little is known about this track. We documented characteristics of clinical faculty at US schools of public health. We surveyed clinical faculty at Council on Education for Public Health-accredited schools of public health in the United States in 2019, identified via each school's website. We invited faculty (n = 264) who had the word clinical in their title (ie, apparently eligible faculty), had a working email address, and were not authors of this article to provide information about their rank, degree credentials, expectations for teaching, service, research and practice, and promotion criteria at their institution. In addition, we used open-ended responses to explain and contextualize quantitative data. Of 264 apparently eligible faculty surveyed, 88 (33.3%) responded. We included 81 eligible clinical faculty in our final sample, of whom 46 (56.8%) were assistant professors and 72 (88.9%) had a terminal degree; 57 of 80 (71.3%) had an initial contract of ≤2 years or no contract. Most clinical faculty listed service (96.2%), teaching (95.0%), and student advising/mentoring (86.3%) as duties; fewer clinical faculty reported research (55.0%), practice (33.8%), or clinic (7.5%) duties. Only 37.1% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that promotion policies for clinical track faculty were clear. If most clinical faculty are at the lowest academic rank, with short contracts and unclear expectations, it will be difficult for clinical faculty to advance and challenging for schools of public health to benefit from this track. Clear institutional expectations for scope of work and promotion may enhance the contribution of clinical faculty to schools of public health and help define this track.

Combating pharmacist burnout: A model for critical care clinical pharmacy faculty

AbstractBurnout is a growing phenomenon among health care professionals in whom the prevalence has been estimated at greater than 50%. The adverse outcomes of burnout affect individuals, institutions, and patients. Although burnout literature in the profession of pharmacy is somewhat lacking, emerging data suggest a similar prevalence. Pharmacists who experience burnout typically suffer from emotional exhaustion and/or a reduced sense of personal accomplishment. The critical care setting introduces several elements that increase the risk of burnout in health care providers, including pharmacists, who practice in this area prompting professional organizations to call for action to address burnout. Critical care pharmacists with faculty appointments have additional responsibilities that may precipitate burnout. In response to anecdotal symptoms of burnout, four critical care pharmacy faculty members at the University of Illinois at Chicago developed and implemented an off‐service rotation model designed to provide clinical track faculty members protected, off‐service time to fully engage in academic responsibilities utilizing a tenured clinical faculty member, and a rotating schedule of clinical coverage to assure continuity in patient care in each of the areas (medical intensive care unit, cardiac care unit, and emergency department). Compared with the 24 months prior to implementation, academic output increased during the 24‐month period following implementation of the model. Importantly, there was no evidence of burnout from the personal accomplishment domain of the Maslach Burnout Inventory‐Health Services Survey for Medical Professionals, although high levels of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization were present.

Strategies for successful promotion for clinical track nursing faculty.

Successful promotion of faculty yields multiple benefits including career advancement, recognition for productivity and contributions to the organization, and an increase in financial compensation for the individual. In academic settings, particularly in research intensive institutions, time and resources often are focused on supporting tenure track faculty to be successful in obtaining promotion and tenure. Although most nursing programs have substantial numbers of clinical track faculty (CTF), there may be less emphasis around planning and resources for performing activities that will lead to successful promotion for nontenure track faculty. Consequently, at the time of initial faculty appointment, CTF must begin promotion planning. This paper provides practical advice for CTF preparing for promotion including planning the promotion trajectory and identifying and facilitating the collection of evidence supporting the areas of teaching, scholarship, practice, and service. Examples are provided of activities engaged in by CTF that would serve as evidence to support promotion.

Mentoring Nurse Faculty: Outcomes of a Three-Year Clinical Track Faculty Initiative.

Clinical track faculty often lack mentoring opportunities needed to develop their scholarship which may hinder their academic promotion. The Clinical Track Faculty Mentoring Initiative was designed to foster scholarship development and academic promotion of clinical assistant professors. Fifteen clinical assistant professors in two cohorts and their mentors participated in the Initiative. Each Cohort lasted two years with one overlapping year. Participating clinical assistant professors were required to attend five check-in meetings, a summer writing workshop, school and university promotion information sessions, and mentor-protégé meetings. Program outcomes were assessed quarterly and they included knowledge of promotion processes, mentorship quality, scholarship productivity, and academic promotion. Scores on knowledge of promotion processes and perceived mentorship quality among participating clinical assistant professors were significantly increased. Participating clinical assistant professors published, on average, 3.33 papers and delivered 6.4 presentations in two years. The Initiative demonstrated an effective mentoring program that incorporated a multimethod approach with clear program goals, strong systems support, and high mentorship quality.

Survey of faculty workload and operational characteristics for academic drug information centers

IntroductionA survey of drug information specialists from academic drug information centers in the United States was conducted to identify faculty workload, operational characteristics of the center, and contribution of those faculty and centers to pharmacy education. MethodsA 32-item survey was administered to drug information specialists and pharmacy college/school deans. Faculty workload items included age, credentials, training, and responsibilities. Center operational items identified clients, number of requests, staffing structure, and funding source. Pharmacy education items included number and type of students training at the center as well as drug information's role in the curriculum. Participants were also asked to identify recent and anticipated changes as well as predict future challenges for academic drug information centers. ResultsThe survey achieved a response rate of 81% from eligible institutions. The typical drug information specialist is between 31 and 50 years old, in a clinical track faculty position, and has an average of 13 years of drug information experience. Academic drug information centers are generally funded by the institution, open five days a week, and serve a variety of clients including the lay public. The average drug information specialist teaches one didactic course and is a preceptor for 17 advanced practice experience students, and 15 introductory practice experience students. ConclusionsDrug information specialists and centers play an important role in pharmacy education. Results of this survey could assist in the creation of benchmarks for academic drug information faculty and centers in terms of workload, resource allocation, and promotion.

Pursuing the Clinical Track Faculty Role: From Clinical Expert to Educator.

Pursuing the Clinical Track Faculty Role: From Clinical Expert to Educator.

Scholarly productivity for nursing clinical track faculty

Recent years have yielded substantial advancement by clinical track faculty in cohort expansion and collective contributions to the discipline of nursing. As a result, standards for progression and promotion for clinical faculty need to be more fully developed, articulated, and disseminated. Our school formed a task force to examine benchmarks for the progression and promotion of clinical faculty across schools of nursing, with the goal of guiding faculty, reviewers, and decision makers about what constitutes excellence in scholarly productivity. Results from analyses of curriculum vitae of clinical professors or associate professors at six universities with high research activity revealed a variety of productivity among clinical track members, which included notable diversity in the types of scholarly products. Findings from this project help quantify types of scholarship for clinical faculty at the time of promotion. This work provides a springboard for greater understanding of the contributions of clinical track faculty to nursing practice.

Predictors of job satisfaction among academic faculty members: do instructional and clinical staff differ?

This study aimed to identify and compare predictors of job satisfaction between instructional and clinical faculty members. A 61-item faculty job satisfaction survey was distributed to 1898 academic faculty members at the University of Michigan Medical School. The anonymous survey was web-based. Questions covered topics on departmental organisation, research, clinical and teaching support, compensation, mentorship, and promotion. Levels of satisfaction were contrasted between faculty members on the two tracks, and predictors of job satisfaction were identified using linear regression models. Response rates for the instructional and clinical faculty groups were 43.1% and 46.7%, respectively. Clinical faculty members reported being less satisfied with how they were mentored and fewer reported understanding the process for promotion. There was no significant difference in overall job satisfaction between the two faculty groups. Surprisingly, clinical faculty members with mentors were significantly less satisfied with how they were mentored and with career advancement, and were significantly less likely to choose an academic career if they had to do it all over again compared with instructional faculty mentees. Additionally, senior-level clinical faculty members were significantly less satisfied with their opportunities to mentor junior faculty members compared with senior-level instructional faculty staff. Significant predictors of job satisfaction for both groups included areas of autonomy, meeting career expectations, work-life balance, and departmental leadership. In the clinical track only, compensation and career advancement variables also emerged as significant predictors of overall job satisfaction. Greater emphasis must be placed on faculty members' well-being at both the institutional level and the level of departmental leadership. Efforts to enhance job satisfaction and improve retention are more likely to succeed if they are directed by locally designed assessments involving department chairs and are specifically aimed at fostering more effective mentoring relationships and increasing the opportunities available for career advancement activities such as research work. Our findings show that these strategies can have significant impacts on job satisfaction and the retention of clinical track faculty members.

Clinician-Educator Tracks for Residents: Three Pilot Programs

Over the past 30 years, clinician-educators have become a prominent component of medical school faculties, yet few of these individuals received formal training for this role and their professional development lags behind other faculty. This article reviews three residency tracks designed to build skills in teaching, curriculum development and assessment, education research, and career development to meet this need. The residency clinician educator tracks at University of Michigan, Baylor College of Medicine, and University of California Davis are described in detail, with particular attention to their common elements, unique features, resource needs, and graduate outcomes. Common elements in the tracks are faculty mentorship, formal didactics, teaching opportunities, and an expectation of scholarly productivity. Essential resources include motivated faculty, departmental support, and a modest budget. Favorable outcomes include a high percentage of graduates in clinical faculty positions, teaching programs created by the residents, positive effects on recruitment, and enhancement of faculty identity as clinician educators. Clinician-educator tracks in residency present a viable means to address the training needs of clinical track faculty. The programs described in this article provide a model to assist other departments in developing similar programs.

Clinical Track Faculty: Merits and Issues

Clinical track faculty (CTF) has been in operation for more than two decades in the United States, and 12 of the top 20 schools of nursing with the highest National Institutes of Health funding in the United States have CTF in place. Yet, only limited articles have been published regarding the merits and issues related to its operation. This article examines the advantages/merits of establishing CTF in schools of nursing, discusses the qualification criteria and types of appointment for CTF, and analyzes issues related to operating CTF in Korea. A questionnaire survey and two workshops were conducted involving faculty from a college of nursing and clinical nurse managers from university-affiliated medical centers and community agencies. Most of the respondents indicated that establishing CTF was advantageous. Merits included the following: increasing reality-based clinical education and training; decreasing the reality shock of students; increasing student satisfaction; and linking education, practice, and research more effectively. Major issues were as follows: getting the approval of medical centers/universities; developing an agreement on CTF operation between the college of nursing and clinical agencies; clarifying types and criteria of appointment and promotion; and developing a statement on role and compensation policies. Most issues are similar to what U.S. schools of nursing have faced, except for the first one. In conclusion, establishing CTF in Korea appears to be highly desirable. Merits outweigh issues/concerns, and Korean nursing schools may look for an opportune time for obtaining the approval of medical centers/universities. Nursing schools in other countries that face a similar challenge of providing clinical teaching with high research performance may consider instituting CTF.

Towards supporting scholarship in research by clinical pharmacy faculty.

The objective of this study was to assess the need for research support, faculty development, and topics of interest to clinical track pharmacy faculty that would facilitate scholarship in research. A cross-sectional survey of pharmacy practice-based faculty at University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) completed via the web in November 2005. Of 39 clinical track faculty respondents (48% response rate), 100% indicated they were interested in being co-investigator or 77% lead investigator on a research grant proposal. The majority of respondents expressed "a lot" or "extreme" interest in receiving methodological guidance and administrative support in order to pursue research interests. The greatest interest in research support services related to sample size calculations, selection of appropriate statistical tests, grant writing, and writing for journals. Barriers to research cited by faculty included lack of confidence in ability, the need for balancing responsibilities, and reward for efforts. Suggestions included the creation of specific research interest groups, research seminars, formal mentoring and statistical support services. Clinical-track faculty are interested in research-related scholarship but typically lack the confidence or skills to lead research. While this study was limited to UIC clinical faculty, UIC faculty are attracted from Colleges of Pharmacy across North America and it is notable that such barriers can be quickly identified using a brief web-based survey in order to inform a plan that provides resources and support for research by clinical pharmacy faculty.

Synthesizing Research, Education, and Practice According to the Scholarship of Practice Model: Two Faculty Examples

SUMMARYThe Scholarship of Practice involves an ongoing, reflective discourse among the theoretical concepts of occupational therapy, the empirical verification of those concepts through research, and the application of those concepts in real-world clinical practice. This article illustrates how the Scholarship of Practice framework is applied by occupational therapy faculty members as a key aspect of their scholarly and teaching roles. Two distinct perspectives are provided-one describes the scholarship and teaching of a clinical-track faculty member and the other describes that of a research-track faculty member. Both examples illustrate how each faculty member's work involves an integration of teaching and advising, scholarship (i.e., developing occupational therapy theory and conducting research), and practice. In both cases, the faculty member uses the Scholarship of Practice approach to better understand the kinds of problems and needs of clients and the ways in which practitioners can use knowledge generated by theory and research to most effectively address them. In turn, each faculty member relies heavily on the feedback from students and practitioners regarding the outcomes of the practical application of the concepts offered by theory and research. This feedback is then utilized to revise and refine existing theory, generate new research questions, and ultimately inform best occupational therapy practice. Finally the process serves as an ideal context for teaching and advising.