Building diverse leadership in an academic medical center: The ACCLAIM program.

As healthcare systems become more complex, medical education needs to adapt in many ways. There is a growing need for more formal leadership learning for healthcare providers, including greater attention to health disparities. An important challenge in addressing health disparities is ensuring inclusive excellence in the leadership of healthcare systems and medical education. Women and those who are underrepresented in medicine (URMs) have historically had fewer opportunities for leadership development and are less likely to hold leadership roles and receive promotions. One successful initiative for improved learning of medical leadership-presented as a case example here-is the Academic Career Leadership Academy in Medicine (ACCLAIM) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine. ACCLAIM is uniquely designed for faculty identified as having emerging leadership potential, with an emphasis on women and URMs. Using a leadership learning system approach, annual cohorts of participants (Scholars) interactively participate in a multi-faceted nine-month long learning experience, including group (e.g., guest-speaker weekly presentations and exercises) and individual learning components (e.g., an individual leadership project). Since its initiation in 2012 and through 2021, 111 Scholars have participated in ACCLAIM; included were 57% women and 27% URMs. Two important outcomes described are: short-term impact as illustrated by consistent improvements in quantitively measured leadership knowledge and capabilities; and long-term leadership growth, whereby half of the ACCLAIM graduates have received academic rank promotions and almost two-thirds have achieved new leadership opportunities, with even higher percentages observed for women and URMs; for example, 87% of URMs were either promoted or achieved new leadership positions. Also consistently noted, through qualitative assessments, are broader healthcare system knowledge and shared tactics for addressing common challenges among Scholars. This case example shows that the promotion of leadership equity may jointly enhance professional development while creating opportunities for systems change within academic medical centers. Such an approach can be a potential model for academic medical institutions and other healthcare schools seeking to promote leadership equity and inclusion.

A Scoping Review of Health Care Faculty Mentorship Programs in Academia: Implications for Program Design, Implementation, and Outcome Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Formal mentoring programs have direct benefits for academic health care institutions, but it is unclear whether program designs use recommended components and whether outcomes are being captured and evaluated appropriately. The goal of this scoping review is to address these questions. METHODS: We completed a literature review using a comprehensive search in SCOPUS and PubMed (1998-2019), a direct solicitation for unpublished programs, and hand-searched key references, while targeting mentor programs in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada. After three rounds of screening, team members independently reviewed and extracted assigned articles for 40 design data items into a comprehensive database. RESULTS: Fifty-eight distinct mentoring programs were represented in the data set. The team members clarified specific mentor roles to assist the analysis. The analysis identified mentoring program characteristics that were properly implemented, including identifying program goals, specifying the target learners, and performing a needs assessment. The analysis also identified areas for improvement, including consistent use of models/frameworks for program design, implementation of mentor preparation, consistent reporting of objective outcomes and career satisfaction outcomes, engagement of program evaluation methods, increasing frequency of reports as programs as they mature, addressing the needs of specific faculty groups (eg, women and minority faculty), and providing analyses of program cost-effectiveness in relation to resource allocation (return on investment). CONCLUSION: The review found that several mentor program design, implementation, outcome, and evaluation components are poorly aligned with recommendations, and content for URM and women faculty members is underrepresented. The review should provide academic leadership information to improve these discrepancies.