Addressing Structural Racism Using a Whole-Scale Planning Process in a Single Academic Center.

Purpose: The murder of George Floyd in 2020 prompted a national demand for cultural transformation to confront the systemic racism prevalent in the country. Academic medical centers were not exempt from this urgent call. This article evaluates the efficacy of a strategic process in fostering cultural transformation within an academic medical system. Methods: A whole-scale strategic planning process was implemented over 13 months, involving multiple working groups representing key stakeholders from each entity across the system, an anonymous survey, a communication plan, and a balanced scorecard to monitor progress. More than 5500 voices, 160 recommendations, 122 data gathering sessions, and town hall meetings contributed to the creation and implementation of vital action items and a strategic framework. The Diversity Engagement Survey (DES) was administered 18 months following the process launch. Results: Of the 45,554 employees, students, faculty, and trainees, 96.5% completed unconscious bias education within the fiscal year and 76% of action items, termed "Just Do Its," were completed. Mission, vision, values, and strategic priorities were crafted to serve as a framework for intermediate and long-term actions. The DES revealed improvement in the "respect" attribute of an inclusive culture, and 64% of respondents confirmed that action for cultural transformation is addressing racism both within and outside of the institution. Conclusion: Implementing a shared purpose, engaging multiple working groups representing key stakeholders, and empowerment of stakeholders to implement changes, in conjunction with the development of a strategic framework addressing structural racism, resulted in the completion of vital action items to initiate cultural change.

What a medical school chair wants from the dean.

Economic pressure has led the evolution of the role of the medical school dean from a clinician educator to a health care system executive. In addition, other dynamic requirements also have likely led to changes in their leadership characteristics. The most important relationship a dean has is with the chairs, yet in the context of the dean's changing role, little attention has been paid to this relationship. To frame this discussion, we asked medical school chairs what characteristics of a dean's leadership were most beneficial. We distributed a 26-question survey to 885 clinical and basic science chairs at 41 medical schools. These chairs were confidentially surveyed on their views of six leadership areas: evaluation, barriers to productivity, communication, accountability, crisis management, and organizational values. Of the 491 chairs who responded (response rate =55%), 88% thought that their dean was effective at leading the organization, and 89% enjoyed working with their dean. Chairs indicated that the most important area of expertise of a dean is to define a strategic vision, and the most important value for a dean is integrity between words and deeds. Explaining the reasons behind decisions, providing good feedback, admitting errors, open discussion of complex or awkward topics, and skill in improving relations with the teaching hospital were judged as desirable attributes of a dean. Interestingly, only 23% of chairs want to be a dean in the future. Financial acumen was the least important skill a chair thought a dean should hold, which is in contrast to the skill set for which many deans are hired and evaluated. After reviewing the literature and analyzing these responses, we assert that medical school chairs want their dean to maintain more traditional leadership than that needed by a health care system executive, such as articulating a vision for the future and keeping their promises. Thus, there appears to be a mismatch between what medical school chairs perceive they need from their dean and how the success of a dean is evaluated.

Recommendations to Sustain the Academic Mission Ecosystem at U.S. Medical Schools.

Academic medical center (AMC) faculty, administrators, and leaders have the critical tasks of teaching and training the next generation of health care providers and biomedical researchers, as well as generating new knowledge that improves the health of all. In the United States, medical schools and their affiliated hospitals train remarkably high-quality physicians and scientists, and the research conducted at these institutions results in advances in health. To that end, AMCs have become essential engines for driving better health in the United States and the rest of the world; they also have become essential engines driving the economies of their respective communities and regions. The education and research missions, however, require subsidization because tuition and extramural grant funding do not cover the costs of these endeavors. This subsidization largely has come from revenues generated by AMCs' clinical endeavors. The viability of this cross-subsidization, however, is increasingly threatened in the current clinical environment. The authors of this Perspective discuss these issues in depth and provide some concrete recommendations to address these challenges. They hope to stimulate discussion and, ultimately, ensure the financial viability of U.S. AMCs-a national resource of utmost importance. Recommendations to sustain research include creating strategic biomedical research plans, developing a defined and sustained model to support National Institutes of Health funding that keeps pace with inflation, and evolving funding mechanisms. Recommendations to sustain medical education include limiting student debt, creating more cost-effective curricula, and ensuring that clinical training opportunities that meet national standards are available to students.

Research in academic medical centers: two threats to sustainable support.

Reductions in federal support and clinical revenue jeopardize biomedical research and, in turn, clinical medicine.