Hierarchy as a barrier to advancement for women in academic medicine

Background: Research on barriers to professional advancement for women in academic medicine has not adequately considered the role of environmental factors and how the structure of organizations affects professional advancement and work experiences. This article examines the impact of the hierarchy, including both the organization's hierarchical structure and professionals' perceptions of this structure, in medical school organization on faculty members' experience and advancement in academic medicine. Methods: As part of an inductive qualitative study of faculty in five disparate U.S. medical schools, we interviewed 96 medical faculty at different career stages and in diverse specialties, using in-depth semistructured interviews, about their perceptions about and experiences in academic medicine. Data were coded and analysis was conducted in the grounded theory tradition. Results: Our respondents saw the hierarchy of chairs, based on the indeterminate tenure of department chairs, as a central characteristic of the structure of academic medicine. Many faculty saw this hierarchy as affecting inclusion, reducing transparency in decision making, and impeding advancement. Indeterminate chair terms lessen turnover and may create a bottleneck for advancement. Both men and women faculty perceived this hierarchy, but women saw it as more consequential. Conclusions: The hierarchical structure of academic medicine has a significant impact on faculty work experiences, including advancement, especially for women. We suggest that medical schools consider alternative models of leadership and managerial styles, including fixed terms for chairs with a greater emphasis on inclusion. This is a structural reform that could increase opportunities for advancement especially for women in academic medicine. © 2010 Copyright Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

A study of the relational aspects of the culture of academic medicine

PURPOSE: The impact of medical school culture on medical students has been well studied, but little documentation exists regarding how medical faculty experience the culture in which they work. In an ongoing project, the National Initiative on Gender, Culture and Leadership in Medicine, the authors are investigating how the existing culture of academic medical institutions supports all faculty members' ability to function at their highest potential. METHOD: The authors conducted a qualitative study of faculty in five disparate U.S. medical schools. Faculty in different career stages and diverse specialties were interviewed regarding their perceptions and experiences in academic medicine. Analysis was inductive and data driven. RESULTS: Relational aspects of the culture emerged as a central theme for both genders across all career categories. Positive relationships were most evident with patients and learners. Negative relational attributes among faculty and leadership included disconnection, competitive individualism, undervaluing of humanistic qualities, deprecation, disrespect, and the erosion of trust. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that serious problems exist in the relational culture and that such problems may affect medical faculty vitality, professionalism, and general productivity and are linked to retention. Efforts to create and support trusting relationships in medical schools might enhance all faculty members' efforts to optimally contribute to the clinical, education, and research missions of academic medicine. Future work will document the outcomes of a five-school collaboration to facilitate change in the culture to support the productivity of all medical faculty. © 2009 Association of American Medical Colleges.

Collaboration in academic medicine:Reflections on gender and advancement

Purpose: Collaboration in academic medicine is encouraged, yet no one has studied the environment in which faculty collaborate. The authors investigated how faculty experienced collaboration and the institutional atmosphere for collaboration. Method: In 2007, as part of a qualitative study of faculty in five disparate U.S. medical schools, the authors interviewed 96 medical faculty at different career stages and in diverse specialties, with an oversampling of women, minorities, and generalists, regarding their perceptions and experiences of collaboration in academic medicine. Data analysis was inductive and driven by the grounded theory tradition. Results: Female faculty expressed enthusiasm about the potential and process of collaboration; male faculty were more likely to focus on outcomes. Senior faculty experienced a more collaborative environment than early career faculty, who faced numerous barriers to collaboration: the hierarchy of medical academe, advancement criteria, and the lack of infrastructure supportive of collaboration. Research faculty appreciated shared ideas, knowledge, resources, and the increased productivity that could result from collaboration, but they were acutely aware that advancement requires an independent body of work, which was a major deterrent to collaboration among early career faculty. Conclusions: Academic medicine faculty have differing views on the impact and benefits of collaboration. Early career faculty face concerning obstacles to collaboration. Female faculty seemed more appreciative of the process of collaboration, which may be of importance for transitioning to a more collaborative academic environment. A reevaluation of effective benchmarks for promotion of faculty is warranted to address the often exclusive reliance on individualistic achievement. © 2009 The Association of American Medical Colleges.

Canaries Coalmines Thunderstones 2010:"Suppressing the Medical Model”; “Family at War”; and “The Fallenness of Humanity"

A Poetic Annual

Agreement between self-report and medical records on signs and symptoms of respiratory illness

Background: Information on patient symptoms can be obtained by patient self-report or medical records review. Both methods have limitations. Aims: To assess the agreement between self-report and documentation in the medical records of signs/symptoms of respiratory illness (fever, cough, runny nose, sore throat, headache, sinus problems, muscle aches, fatigue, earache, and chills). Methods: Respondents were 176 research participants in the Hutterite Influenza Prevention Study during the 2008-2009 influenza season with information about the presence or absence of signs/symptoms from both self-report and primary care medical records. Results: Compared with medical records, lower proportions of self-reported fever, sore throat, earache, cough, and sinus problems were found. Total agreements between self-report and medical report of symptoms ranged from 61% (for sore throat) to 88% (for muscle aches and earache), with kappa estimates varying from 0.05 (for chills) to 0.41 (for cough) and 0.51 (for earache). Negative agreement was considerably higher (from 68% for sore throat to 93% for muscle aches and earache) than positive agreement (from 13% for chills to 58% for earache) for each symptom except cough where positive agreement (77%) was higher than negative agreement (64%). Agreements varied by age group. We found better agreement for earache (kappa=0.62) and lower agreements for headache, sinus problems, muscle aches, fatigue, and chills in older children (aged =5 years) and adults. Conclusions: Agreements were variable depending on the specific symptom. Contrary to research in other patient populations which suggests that clinicians report fewer symptoms than patients, we found that the medical record captured more symptoms than selfreport. Symptom agreement and disagreement may be affected by the perspectives of the person experiencing them, the observer, the symptoms themselves, measurement error, the setting in which the symptoms were observed and recorded, and the broader community and cultural context of patients. © 2012 Primary Care Respiratory Society UK. All rights reserved.

Access to medical records for research purposes:Varying perceptions across research ethics boards

Introduction: Variation across research ethics boards (REBs) in conditions placed on access to medical records for research purposes raises concerns around negative impacts on research quality and on human subject protection, including privacy. Aim: To study variation in REB consent requirements for retrospective chart review and who may have access to the medical record for data abstraction. Methods: Thirty 90-min face-to-face interviews were conducted with REB chairs and administrators affiliated with faculties of medicine in Canadian universities, using structured questions around a case study with open-ended responses. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded manually. Results: Fourteen sites (47%) required individual patient consent for the study to proceed as proposed. Three (10%) indicated that their response would depend on how potentially identifying variables would be managed. Eleven sites (38%) did not require consent. Two (7%) suggested a notification and opt-out process. Most stated that consent would be required if identifiable information was being abstracted from the record. Among those not requiring consent, there was substantial variation in recognising that the abstracted information could potentially indirectly re-identify individuals. Concern over access to medical records by an outside individual was also associated with requirement for consent. Eighteen sites (60%) required full committee review. Sixteen (53%) allowed an external research assistant to abstract information from the health record. Conclusions: Large variation was found across sites in the requirement for consent for research involving access to medical records. REBs need training in best practices for protecting privacy and confidentiality in health research. A forum for REB chairs to confidentially share concerns and decisions about specific studies could also reduce variation in decisions.