Wendy L. Ward

Times of uncertainty and rapid change can negatively impact academic health centers (AHC) in complex ways, creating challenges for leaders. These include policy uncertainty, financial instability, workforce stress, reputational risk, operational disruptions, and advocacy pressure. There are also potential opportunities for AHCs during this time of immense change and disruption. This perspective piece reviews the diverse negative and positive impacts of political turmoil on academic health centers. Five considerations are offered for leaders navigating times of uncertainty.

Introduction: As coaching increases in Academic Health Centers (AHCs), a deeper understanding of its benefits is needed. One gap is understanding potential impact on coaches themselves. As coaching is grounded in principles of Appreciative Inquiry (positivity begets positivity), coaching may also benefit coaches. Answering this question will allow for boarder assessment of return on investment of coaching programs. Methods: The authors developed an electronic survey using the theoretical framework of appreciative inquiry, collecting demographics and elements of the burnout scale rating (BSR), value of work rating (VWR), job satisfaction rating (JSR), and free-text benefits of being a coach. Using convenience sampling, the survey was distributed to coaches of physicians through author affiliations with coaching groups and listservs from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Group on Faculty Affairs (GFA), an international coaching organization, and an AHC coaching group. Quantitative data were descriptively analyzed. Free-text answers underwent inductive thematic analysis. Results: Eighty-nine of 433 survey viewers (21%) completed it. The majority feel valued, experience minimal feelings of burnout, and endorse job satisfaction. Analysis identified three major benefits: personal fulfillment, interpersonal benefit, and professional growth and advancement. Discussion: Coaching positively impacts coaches themselves, adding evidence for its use in AHCs. Many coaches find their work deeply fulfilling as it aligns with their values, enhances self-awareness, and improves their wellbeing by fostering mindfulness and personal growth. Additionally, coaching strengthens their communication and leadership skills leading to better interactions with patients and trainees, professional development, and more effective leadership.

Psychologists have unique and valuable skill sets that are increasingly recognized and desired for leadership positions within academic health centers (AHCs; Kirch and Ast, in J Clin Psychol Med Settings 24:86–91, 2017). Despite this trend, there are not many specialized leadership training opportunities for psychologists employed at AHCs. The Leadership for Psychologists in Academic Health Centers (L-PAHC) Conference was conceptualized and implemented as a virtual conference offering to address this professional development need. This paper details the conference overview, target audience, content, and speakers, scheduling and implementation, and evaluation and feedback from the inaugural L-PAHC Virtual Conference. The conference was well attended (n = 97), with a range of career stages represented (41% early, 45% mid-career, 14% late career). Attendees included APAHC members (76.3%) and non-members, most of whom were already serving in leadership roles (86%). Interactive conference engagement was high, and feedback was generally positive and indicative of attainment of conference training goals (M = 4.85 of possible 5; SD = 0.36). All respondents recommended that L-PAHC should be held again and most reported that they would return. The L-PAHC Conference was well received and highly rated for addressing leadership training needs for psychologists in AHCs. Specific feedback and recommendations for future leadership training are provided.

Interprofessional education (IPE) benefits are well-established, yet methods for implementing such programs vary greatly. This study compares infrastructure, curriculum, evaluation procedures, and insights from over a decade of IPE implementation at two institutions. Both saw evolution of common curriculum frameworks and evaluation metrics. However, a centralized administrative approach outperformed a grassroots approach for developing capacity for IPE uptake, as indicated by higher scores on the Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC) Institutional Assessment Instrument. These experiences facilitated formation of a statewide IPE consortium. The authors urge others to consider these findings when implementing IPE curricula, contributing to the collective knowledge base on effective IPE models.

Trends in faculty demographic composition, promotion success, and retention are important considerations in Academic Health Centers (AHC). This paper reviews the design, implementation, and utility of a faculty promotion and tenure (P&T) database (PROMO/TE©) over 12 years in a large southwestern academic health center. Review of the system design, portfolio creation, P&T tracking, interface with other faculty databases, and lessons learned will be offered. PROMO/TE© was developed to improve the P&T packet creation, application, and review process in one College and was expanded to other colleges at the AHC. The PROMO/TE© system is integrated with Workday® and FACFACTS© to track trends in recruitment, attrition, and P&T trends across gender, underrepresented minorities, and other subgroups. PROMO/TE© has several advantages including improving communication, transparency, uniformity, and efficiency in the P&T packet creation, application, and review process. Increased cost savings ($217,198 annually) were noted with elimination of hard copy packets and decreased time spent. The first college reviewed 743 dossiers in the PROMO/TE© system since its creation in 2012 and there has been on average a 10% increase in P&T approvals since its inception. PROMO/TE© facilitates and tracks trends in the P&T process and has many benefits as well as significant cost savings. PROMO/TE© serves as a potential model for other institutions.

Interprofessional Education (IPE) is intended to prepare health professionals for teambased care. Little is known about IPE offerings for psychology trainees. The article reports on a survey of training directors (263) from graduate school, internship, and fellowship programs about IPE in a 39-item survey. Most programs have IPE activities across 17 types (e.g., classroom didactics, IP team care, Grand Rounds, simulations, etc.), though 34% reported no or poorly coordinated IPE. Barriers included limited funding/protected time and conflicting student schedules. Resources needed for implementing IPE included incorporating IPE into clinical settings, curricular materials, and evaluation tools. Only 15% felt institutional leadership considered IPE a high priority. Training directors need leadership engagement and support, protected time, and administrative support as well as faculty development for event design and facilitation skills. This study is an exploratory first step, more granular investigation of quality and quantity of IPE from training directors’ perspectives is needed.

Mentoring has a long tradition in academic health centers, and from an institutional perspective can positively impact retention, wellness, promotion success, work satisfaction, and more. On the individual level, mentorship can provide professional growth and personal satisfaction for both participants. However, mentors may struggle with how to build their mentorship skills, navigating challenges with mentees over time, or if/how/when to conclude a mentor–mentee relationship. Mentees may not understand how to find a mentor, what the nature of that relationship is, or what their role is (what characterizes a “good” mentee). As important as mentorship is, it can be challenging for both to find and maintain a high-quality mentor–mentee relationship. This article reviews the qualities that are most critical in developing a successful mentoring relationship, the longitudinal nature of this relationship, common problems that arise, and the potential rewards that exist for each person involved in the relationship.

Integrated behavioral health care (IBHC) models are a growing trend for health care delivery, particularly in the primary setting. Clinicians working within IBHC contexts provide a spectrum of behavioral health services, including screening, prevention and health promotion, assessment, and treatment services. Integration of behavioral health providers into primary and specialty medical settings addresses the significant need for behavioral health services, improves care quality, improves patient experience, and reduces costs of care, access issues, and delays in service provision. While benefits are clear, what type of model to implement and which behavioral health care providers to include in that model remain elusive. This is partly due to the failure of IBHC models to include all behavioral health providers in their design, a lack of clarity of the expertise of each provider, and how providers work together. IBHC models are also complicated by contextual issues such as the relative availability of each profession, population health needs in different clinic populations, and financial factors. The purpose of this manuscript is to the clarify roles and responsibilities of different behavioral health professions including similarities and differences in their training, areas of unique expertise (role distinctions), shared responsibilities (role overlap), and relative cost and availability in the United States.

Interprofessional education (IPE) is defined as educational activities involving trainees from two or more professions learning about, from, and with each other with the goal of building team-based collaboration skills. The degree to which psychology trainees are involved in IPE is unknown. A national survey was distributed to gather information regarding the nature and prevalence of IPE experiences and psychology trainees’ perceived competence in collaboration skills. Participant responses (n = 143) are presented overall and by training level. Some respondents reported no IPE activities in their training, especially trainees earlier in their training. Highest rated competencies were in acting with honesty and integrity and developing/maintaining mutual respect and trust of other professions. Lowest rated were in giving feedback to others and managing differences in opinion. More research related to the nature and impact of IPE on psychology trainees is critical.