Display options
Cite
Sonnino RE, Reznik V, Thorndyke LA, et al. Evolution of faculty affairs and faculty development offices in U.S. medical schools: a 10-year follow-up survey. Acad Med. 2013;88(9):1368-75doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31829ed496.
Sonnino, R. E., Reznik, V., Thorndyke, L. A., Chatterjee, A., Ríos-Bedoya, C. F., Mylona, E., Nelson, K. G., Weisman, C. S., Morahan, P. S., & Wadland, W. C. (2013). Evolution of faculty affairs and faculty development offices in U.S. medical schools: a 10-year follow-up survey. Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 88(9), 1368-75. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31829ed496
Sonnino, Roberta E, et al. "Evolution of faculty affairs and faculty development offices in U.S. medical schools: a 10-year follow-up survey." Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges vol. 88,9 (2013): 1368-75. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31829ed496
Sonnino RE, Reznik V, Thorndyke LA, Chatterjee A, Ríos-Bedoya CF, Mylona E, Nelson KG, Weisman CS, Morahan PS, Wadland WC. Evolution of faculty affairs and faculty development offices in U.S. medical schools: a 10-year follow-up survey. Acad Med. 2013 Sep;88(9):1368-75. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31829ed496. PMID: 23899902.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Acad Med. 2013 Sep;88(9):1368-75. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31829ed496.

Evolution of faculty affairs and faculty development offices in U.S. medical schools: a 10-year follow-up survey.

Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges

Roberta E Sonnino, Vivian Reznik, Luanne A Thorndyke, Archana Chatterjee, Carlos F Ríos-Bedoya, Elza Mylona, Kathleen G Nelson, Carol S Weisman, Page S Morahan, William C Wadland

Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48201, USA. [email protected]

PMID: 23899902 DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31829ed496

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine how U.S. MD-granting medical schools manage, fund, and evaluate faculty affairs/development functions and to determine the evolution of these offices between 2000 and 2010.

METHOD: In December 2010, the authors invited faculty affairs designees at 131 U.S. MD-granting medical schools to complete a questionnaire developed by the Association of American Medical Colleges Group on Faculty Affairs, based on a 2000 survey. Schools were asked about core functions, budget, staffing, and performance metrics. The authors analyzed the data using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS: A total of 111 schools (84.7%) responded. Fifty percent of the offices were established since 2000. Seventy-eight percent reported their top core function as administrative support for appointments, promotions, and tenure, as in 2000. Faculty policies, appointments, databases, governance support, grievance proceedings, management issues, and annual trend analyses continued as major functions. All 11 core functions identified in 2000 remain predominantly provided by central offices of faculty affairs, except support of major leadership searches. Web site communication emerged as a new core function. Similar to 2000, several other offices were responsible for some faculty development functions. Office size and budget correlated positively with size of the faculty and age of the office (P < .05 for all). Thirty-five schools (31.5%) reported formally evaluating their faculty affairs office.

CONCLUSIONS: The number of faculty affairs offices and their responsibilities have substantially increased since 2000. Most major core functions have not changed. These offices are now an established part of the central administration of most medical schools.

MeSH terms

Publication Types