Minutes November 1, 2010
DOM Faculty Development and Diversity Committee
Present: Emelia Benjamin, Peter Cahn (recorder), Isabel Dominguez, Frank Farraye, Karen Freund (chair), Caroline Genco, Angela Jackson, Stephanie Lee, Jane Liebschutz, Paola Massari, Matt Russell
I. Seminar survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/fddcseminars
A. The committee agreed to put the longest question in the survey at the end and add a question about other formats faculty might prefer (short series on a single topic, intense half-day session).
B. Researchers already have noontime meetings, so it might work to bring content to existing programs like training grants. We can work through Linda Hyman and the new postdoc office.
Action: Peter Cahn will make revisions and then circulate to the faculty
II. Preparation for November’s seminar
A. Jane Liebschutz will lead a seminar on networking at professional conferences. Isabel Dominguez agreed to provide the Ph.D. perspective. They will have participants practice giving their “elevator speeches.”
B. To spur attendance, they can target fellowship directors, section chiefs, and early career faculty.
Action plan: Jane Liebschutz and Isabel Dominguez to meet
III. Succession planning update
A. Jane Liebschutz has agreed to take over as chair in the next month.
B. Co-chair welcome.
III. Clinical directors update
A. Since the last meeting, Karen Freund sounded out possibilities for providing mentoring to administrative faculty. Some warned about accommodating different levels and skill needs. Others feared being burdened with another seminar.
B. Although meetings already exist for quality initiative and clinical directors, no one in that group is turning their work into scholarship. Possible future steps: speak to Raj Krishnamurthy and Nila Radhakrishnan about getting on the agenda at a future clinical directors’ meeting.
A. Brainstorm ideas for helping faculty adapt to escalating clinical mandates and funding scarcity.
- Have fun
- Don’t fear change
- Feel valued
- Provide forum to express feelings
- Appreciative inquiry–focus on what’s working
- Put a clearinghouse for techniques on the website
- Create a blog for positive shoutouts
- Offer a grant for innovation
- Make it ok to question the direction of change. Why this RVU target? Once you understand it, you can accept it.
- Dig out from entrenched positions
- Make the problem the problem; don’t personalize it
- Recognize the struggles
- Spur more involvement to counter the loss of control
- Provide chair massages/chocolate/therapy/faculty lounge
- Build community in the workplace
- Launch a contest to get people involved
Action Plan: Revisit at next meeting
V. Writing an RFA for evaluation of education and quality projects.
A. The criteria for DOM Pilot Grants favor biomedical research and should apply to research evaluating educational and clinical innovations.
B. The committee felt that the terms of the grant should be equivalent for clinicians and scientists, so either both can receive salary support or none.
Action plan: Revisit at next meeting and share with Barbara Corkey
Current language Proposed additions
|Boston University Integrated Biomedical Pilot Grants Program||Department of Medicine Education and Clinical Quality Improvement Initiative|
|Expand breadth of research in DOM||Expand scholarship in medical education and clinical quality improvement|
|Lead to R01 or equivalent||Lead to sustained improvement in our education or clinical programs through rigorous evaluation of benefits|
|Includes basic, translational, clinical, and educational projects||Focus on evaluation research of educational and/or clinical quality improvement|
|Full-time faculty||Full-time faculty|
|1 year support||2 year support|
|Plan to submit IRB/ exemption request to clear ability for publication|
|Other than faculty salary support||May include up to 5%? 10% of junior faculty (instructor/asst prof) effort, if faculty member has no other source of protected time for project|
|Expenses include laboratory supplies, small equipment, patient costs, consultants, or support for pre/postdoctoral students, technicians, or research assistants.||May include research assistants, pre or post doctoral students, IT support through Clinical Research Office|
|Priority use of biostatistical core if funded (no additional fee)|
|Junior faculty without publications/ evaluation training/ skills require mentor letter (no mentor funding)|
|Priority to projects evaluating existing educational or clinical programs/ innovations, changes.|
|Review criteria||Review criteria|
|Significance of the work in terms of potential health impact||Significance of the work in terms of its impact on clinical care or education in the department|
|Scientific rigor and novelty||Evaluations will be graded most highly if an appropriate control in the evaluation.|
|Likelihood will lead to subsequent external funding and/or commercial development||Explicit plan for written and publishable dissemination of the results, with target journal identified|
|Experience and productivity of the research team||Demonstration of experience, or mentorship to gain experience.|