Leadership Development for Future Medical School Deans: Outcomes of the AAMC Council of Deans Fellowship Program.

PURPOSE: To determine the outcomes of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Council of Deans (COD) Fellowship Program with respect to participants' achieving the goals of becoming a medical school dean and developing leadership skills, and to ascertain fellows' views about the program's value, beneficial aspects, and areas for improvement. METHOD: The 37 COD fellows from 2002 to 2016 were invited to participate in a 2017 survey addressing demographics, training, current leadership position, and value of the program. The survey also included 3 open-ended questions. A 2018 web-based search was conducted to determine fellows' senior leadership roles since their program participation. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 73% (27/37). The majority of respondents were male (82%, 22), aged 51-70 (89%, 25), and white (82%, 22). The top 5 medical specialties reported were internal medicine, pediatrics, anesthesiology, psychiatry, and surgery. Most respondents (63%, 17) reported having a graduate degree. All reported being in leadership positions in academia and/or health care. The web-based search found that 27% (10/37) of the fellows became medical school deans (average tenure 5.6 years); 2 fellows became deans of other types of schools. Overall, survey respondents perceived the program as valuable. Respondents identified shadowing a dean mentor, attending COD meetings, and attending the AAMC Executive Development Seminar for Deans as the most valuable program components. The majority (88%, 23/26) indicated their fellow experience persuaded them to pursue being a dean; 2 (8%) indicated it did not. Respondents identified 4 key opportunities for program improvement: more sponsorship by deans, development of a learning community, enhanced mentoring, and coaching. CONCLUSIONS: The COD Fellowship Program appears to be successful in preparing senior faculty to become deans and assume other senior leadership roles in academia and/or health care. Fellows' feedback will be used to inform future revisions to the program.

Developing a Culture of Mentorship to Strengthen Academic Medical Centers.

Mentorship is central to academic medicine and its missions, and it has long played a critical role in the training and career development of physicians and scientists. A growing body of literature has documented the positive impact of mentorship on various outcomes, including research productivity, academic promotion, faculty retention, and career satisfaction. These benefits span academic medical centers' missions and have the potential to enhance biomedical research, patient care, education, and faculty diversity and leadership.In this Invited Commentary, the authors argue that a dynamic culture of mentorship is essential to the success of academic medical centers and should be elevated to the level of a major strategic priority. This culture of mentorship would capitalize on an institution's intellectual resources and seek to develop leaders in biomedical discovery, patient care, and education. The bidirectional transmission of knowledge between mentors and mentees, through both formal programs and informal relationships, can foster the growth of faculty members needed to meet the complex challenges currently confronting medical schools and teaching hospitals.Developing a culture of mentorship requires a strong commitment by leaders at all levels to nurture the next generation of physicians and scientists as well as grassroots efforts by trainees and faculty to seek out and create mentorship opportunities. The authors conclude by outlining possible mechanisms and incentives for elevating mentorship to the level of a strategic priority to strengthen academic medical centers across their missions.

The Good Investment.

The authors reflect on the article in this issue entitled "Borrow or Serve? An Economic Analysis of Options for Financing a Medical School Education" by Marcu and colleagues, which makes a compelling case that a medical school education is a good investment, no matter what financing option students use, from federal service programs to federal loans. The lead author of this Commentary shares lessons learned from his own medical school education, which was funded by an Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship, and from his current position interacting with medical students across the United States.Regardless of the financing path they choose, all students should understand basic financial concepts and the details of the various pathways that are available to pay for their medical school education, as well as how each could potentially impact their own future and that of their families. One underappreciated aspect of financing a medical school education is that federal repayment scenarios can link loan payments to income, rather than debt levels, which means that all physicians are able to afford their loan payments no matter what specialty they practice, what they are paid, or where they live.Medical education, while expensive, remains the good investment. An MD degree can lead to a lifetime of personal fulfillment and societal contributions. Everyone, with rare exceptions, accepted to a U.S. medical school will be able to finance their medical education via a path that aligns with their personal values and priorities.

From rankings to mission.

Since the 1980s, school ranking systems have been a topic of discussion among leaders of higher education. Various ranking systems are based on inadequate data that fail to illustrate the complex nature and special contributions of the institutions they purport to rank, including U.S. medical schools, each of which contributes uniquely to meeting national health care needs. A study by Tancredi and colleagues in this issue of Academic Medicine illustrates the limitations of rankings specific to primary care training programs. This commentary discusses, first, how each school's mission and strengths, as well as the impact it has on the community it serves, are distinct, and, second, how these schools, which are each unique, are poorly represented by overly subjective ranking methodologies. Because academic leaders need data that are more objective to guide institutional development, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) has been developing tools to provide valid data that are applicable to each medical school. Specifically, the AAMC's Medical School Admissions Requirements and its Missions Management Tool each provide a comprehensive assessment of medical schools that leaders are using to drive institutional capacity building. This commentary affirms the importance of mission while challenging the leaders of medical schools, teaching hospitals, and universities to use reliable data to continually improve the quality of their training programs to improve the health of all.