office of inclusion and diversity - home | perelman school ... · the office of inclusion and...

Office of Inclusion and Diversity

Eve J. Higginbotham, SM, MD

Katherine Stamper, MBA

3400 Civic Center Boulevard Building 421Philadelphia, PA 19104Phone: 215-898-5581Fax: 215-573-2030

2014 - 2015 Year In Review

2014-15 YEAR IN REVIEW | OFFICE OF INCLUSION & DIVERSITY i

Why Is Inclusion Important? ..................................................................................................1

Office of Inclusion & Diversity ..............................................................................................2

Balanced Scorecard ...........................................................................................................2

Building Organization Capacity .................................................................................... 3 - 5

Ensuring Efficient Internal Processes .............................................................................. 6 - 7

Embrace Financial Stewardship ..........................................................................................8

Exceeding Expectation of Primary Stakeholders ...................................................... 9 - 10

Clinical & Research Metrics ...................................................................................... 11 - 13

OID Special Recognition ....................................................................................................14

OID Advisory Council ..........................................................................................................14

GRAPHIC DESIGN: MARY A. LEONARD AND ANNE LEVY PUGH, BIOMEDICAL ART & DESIGN, PERELMAN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; COVER PHOTO: SCOTT SPITZER, THE OFFICE OF UNIVERSITY COMMUNICATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

2014-15 YEAR IN REVIEW | OFFICE OF INCLUSION & DIVERSITY 1

Why is inclusion important?

FiGURE 1. inclusion and diversity are core values that are fundamental to stimulating innovation and creating impact.

“Increasing diversity and inclusion at every level - student, faculty and staff - is one of Penn’s highest institutional priorities. Make no mistake: by working together effectively to achieve diversity and inclusion, our great University will become ever more innovative and eminent.”

Amy GutmannPresident, University of Pennsylvania

Guest Column, Daily Pennsylvanian, April 19, 2013

“By fostering a vibrant and dynamic environment of inclusion, the Perelman School of Medicine is better able to address challenges and excel in academic medicine.”

J. Larry Jameson, MD, PhDExecutive Vice President

University of Pennsylvania for the Health SystemDean, Perelman School of Medicine

Introduction to the Perelman School of Medicine Plan for Faculty Diversity and Inclusion

Innovation &

Impact

Excellence without arrogance

Collaborative culture

Professionalism,altruism, and justice

Inclusion and diversity

Integration across missions

2

MissionStrengthen the quality of education, produce innovative research and a model for healthcare delivery by fostering a vibrant inclusive environment and fully embracing diversity.

Strategic Goals

• Recruit outstanding talent

• Retain and ensure the success of a diverse community composed of faculty, staff, and students

• Reaffirm the ongoing benefits of inclusion and diversity

FiGURE 2. OiD BALANCED SCORECARD

Selected Accomplishments of OiD to DateTo build a sustainable infrastructure and support ongoing efforts for inclusion and diversity, a Balanced Scorecard was developed.

Initiatives are divided into four domains for achieving the goals of the office and also ensure the sustainability of these initiatives:

• Building Organizational Capacity

• Ensuring Efficient Internal Processes

• Maintaining Financial Stewardship

• Exceeding Expectations of Primary Stakeholders

The Office of Inclusion and Diversity (OID) was originally envisioned by the faculty at the Perelman School of Medicine (PSOM) in 2011, then endorsed by Dean Larry Jameson, and launched in August of 2013. Following interviews with key stakeholders, focus groups and key constituencies, and further shaped by the OID Advisory Council (See page 14), the following Mission and Goals were crafted and are put forward here.

1. Increase student and faculty satisfaction

2. Increase in women and diverse faculty compared to 3 year rolling averages

1. Enhance the infrastructure to support the acquisition of K and R awards among fellows and junior faculty

2. Establish the benefit of investing in faculty who have protected time and whose development needs are actively supported

1. Review recruitment and appointment process faculty and determine strategies to streamline

2. Enhance transparency while maintaining confidentiality with regards to key metrics such as space and rates of promotion

3. Research the benefits of a structured vs unstructured approach for DSA engagement

1. Develop a database of potential faculty candidates

2. Establish an OID website listing programs, SIG, and community programs

3. Develop and implement a cadre of leadership programs, emphasizing inclusion

1. Increased satisfaction as measured by MSGQ and faculty cultural audit

2. Net Increase in number of women by 40, URM faculty by 10

1. 10% increase in K and R awards submitted compared to FY13

2. Successful extramural funding received by at least three, actively mentored faculty members by the end of FY16

1. Reduce time to hire by 20% from baseline by FY15

2. Identify key metrics that are amenable to this reporting, establish a process for collecting relevant data, and a strategy for sharing the data

3. Complete randomized trial and report outcome

1. Database established and used in at least 5% searches by FY15

2. Website established and receiving at least 50 hits a month

3. One new leadership program by end of FY15

Sta

keho

lde

rsFi

nanc

ial

Ste

wa

rdsh

ipIn

tern

al P

roc

ess

Org

ani

zatio

nal

Ca

pa

city

STRATEGiC PRiORiTiES PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Completed In-Progress

OFFiCE OF iNCLUSiON & DiVERSiTY (OiD)


■ Katherine Stamper joined the OID with an extensive background in industry. Mrs. Stamper is responsible for providing administrative and operational execution to support initiatives critical to the office for sustaining inclusion and diversity. She joins Dr. Eve Higginbotham (Vice-Dean) in the OID and brings valuable expertise from an accomplished twelve-year career with Johnson & Johnson (J&J), where she held positions in Healthcare Compliance, Commercial Operations and served as a leader of Diversity and Inclusion initiatives (J&J). The OID anticipates filling additional positions in the near term to strengthen its capacity for supporting anchor programs and obtaining grant funding.

■ In support of our strategic priority to develop a national search database of potential faculty candidates, a repository of 460 potential candidates’ representing more than 100 U.S. academic medical institutions nationwide was established. Continuing our efforts, we will formalize and enhance this database and subsequently leverage it as part of the ongoing faculty recruitment process institution wide. It will be an efficient tool to identify diverse, highly qualified and competitive faculty candidates.

■ The OiD website has been modified to include the most updated information, including staff bios and blogs. It also will highlight upcoming events across the institution. The OID website now has a new feature added since its initial launch that allows metrics to be measured. The page-view metrics demonstrate that the OID website is generating traffic far exceeding the initial commitment of 50 hits per month (Figure 3).

■ In collaboration with Graduate Medical Education (GME), a new position, Associate Designated Institutional Officer (DIO) for Inclusion & Health Equity, has been developed to foster cultural competency and interest in health disparities primarily among house staff. Following a competitive search process, Dr. Jaya Aysola, Assistant Professor of Medicine at the Perelman School of Medicine (PSOM) assumed the role of Associate DIO on July 1, 2015.

■ In collaboration with Dr. Jerry Johnson, Center of Excellence in Health Education and Research (COEHR), Project Director, the OID is refining the professional development platform of his program to support continuous skill building (i.e., grant development and manuscript preparation), mentoring relationships, and content for diverse faculty interested in health equity research.

■ A Co-Sponsored Seminar Research Event with the Leonard Davis Institute (LDI) of Health Economics on September 26, 2014, featured Sandra E. Brooks, MD, MBA, an AΩA medical graduate of Howard University, who formerly served as full Professor and Director of the Division of Gynecologic Oncology at the University of Maryland. She has most recently led and developed population health based prevention initiatives and the research administration for a major health system.

i. Building organizational capacity to sustain inclusion and diversity efforts institutionally

FiGURE 3. OiD WEBSiTE PAGEViEWS BY MONTH

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0J JA FS M

2014 2015

O AN MD J

2,66

1

2,46

5

1,78

5

2,49

3

1,61

4

2,01

3

2,11

9

1,53

8 1,90

3

1,92

8 2,22

1

2107

BUiLDiNG ORGANiZATiONAL CAPACiTY

4

■ The OID exhibited at the National Hispanic Medical Association’s (NHMA) 19th annual conference in Washington, DC. Diana Harris, Former Director of OID, and Katherine Stamper, Executive Assistant for OID, attended the NHMA meeting on March 26-28, 2015. The OID provided materials and information about PSOM to students, trainees and practicing physicians.

■ A sponsored event featured Dr. David Satcher, who gave the keynote address at the 2015 Martin Luther King, Jr., Health Equity Symposium at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Satcher is Director of the Satcher Health Leadership Institute and Professor of Community Health and Preventive Medicine, Family Medicine, and Psychiatry at the Morehouse School of Medicine. Previously, he served as the 16th Surgeon General of the United States. Dr. Richard Carmona, the 17th Surgeon General of the United States will be the keynote speaker for the 2016 Martin Luther King, Jr. Health Equity Symposium.

■ The OID also contributed to the successful recruit-ment of an African American woman basic scientist, who was the first to receive a Presidential Term Professorship, thus increasing the number of Underrepresented Minority (URM) basic scientists by nearly 10%. This recruitment is the first in this category since 2001.

■ Scholarships were provided to send eligible faculty to attend Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) conferences, including the Minority Faculty Development Seminar in September of 2014 and the AAMC Executive Development Seminar for Aspiring Leaders in May of 2015.

• Neha Patel, MD, MS, AAMC Executive Develop-ment Seminar For Aspiring Leaders - April, 2015

• John Fiadjoe, MD, Writing/Designing NIH Proposal Workshop - May, 2015

• Jorge Henao-Mejia, MD, PhD, Writing/Designing NIH Proposal Workshop - May, 2015

• Elizabeth Prout Parks, MD, MSCE, Writing/Designing NIH Proposal Workshop - May, 2015

• Chileshe Nkonde-Price, MD, MS, MRCP, NIH Professional Proposal Writing Workshop - June, 2015

• Sharon Lewis, MD, AAMC Early Career Seminar - July, 2015

• Michelle Johnson, PhD, AAMC Minority Faculty Career Development Conference - September, 2015

• Samantha Butts, MD, MSCE, AAMC Minority Faculty Career Development Conference - September, 2015



■ To affirm the benefits of inclusion, the OID fosters scholarships and presentations at national meetings.

Listed below are presentations we have supported this past year.

• “Increasing Diversity in Faculty Searches at the Perelman School of Medicine,” presented by James Guevara, MD, MPH at the AAMC Annual Meeting, October 2014.

• “How A 3-tiered Intervention Impacted Academic Productivity of Women Medical Faculty Results from NIH-TAC (Transforming Academic Culture) Randomized Trial.” presented by FOCUS at the AAMC Meeting, Fall 2014

• “The Influence of URM and Gender Status on Residency Program Choice”, presented by Tomas Diaz & Atu Agawu at the AAMC Conference, Spring 2015

• “PUTTING THE SEXXY IN RESEARCH: A New Institute for the Study of Sex and Gender in Health at the Perelman School of Medicine,” presented by C. Neill Epperson, MD at the ELAM Leaders Forum, Spring 2015

• “Close Collaboration Between Faculty Affairs and Inclusion and Diversity Offices: A Formula for Success,” presented by Karen Grasse at the AAMC/GDI Conference, Summer, 2015

• “Seeding the Healthcare Workforce Through the Educational Pipeline: The Summer Undergraduate Minority Research Experience,” presented by Joanne Levy at the AAMC/GDI Conference, Summer, 2015


The in�uence of URM and gender status on residency program choiceTomas Diaz1, Atu Agawu1, Diana Harris2, Peter F. Cronholm3, Mary Catherine Harris1,4, Eve J. Higginbotham1,2

1Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; 2O�ce of Inclusion and Diversity, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; 3Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; 4The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA

Introduction

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Next Steps

■ Limited literature exists regarding how medical students make decisions when constructing residency rank list

■ There is a need to better understand how ranking residency programs is influenced by gender and/or membership in an underrepresented minority (URM) group

■ Several universally important factors were identified

■ Factors may vary based on gender and URM status

■ Program atmosphere and reputation are important modifiable factors that influence the choices made by candidates

■ Gender and ethnic diversity of existing faculty and housestaff are important modifiable factors in attracting diverse candidates

■ Complete thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews

■ Stratify qualitative analysis based on gender and URM status

■ To comprehensively characterize factors important to medical students when ranking residency programs

■ To describe the influence of URM status and gender on the rank list construction process

■ Study Design ● Mixed-methods study consisting of: – Web-based survey – Semi-structured interviews

■ Study Population ● Students at University of Pennsylvania participating in National Resident

Matching Program in 2013 and 2014

■ Web-based survey ● Likert scale rankings of various factors considered when constructing rank list

● Collection of demographic variables (age, gender, race/ethnicity)

■ Survey Statistical Analysis ● Summary statistics of survey items (mean and standard deviation)

and demographic variables

● Student t-test to compare differences in survey items based on: – URM status (defined based on race/ethnicity per AAMC definition) – Gender (male vs. female)

■ Semi-Structured Interviews ● Interviews with random selection of survey participants (27 to date)

● Interview guide targeted to: – Fully elucidate rank list decision making process – Explore participants’ perceptions of the influence of URM status

and gender

■ Qualitative Analysis ● Team-based codebook development based on consensus

Table 1. Participant descriptive statistics

Figure 2. Gender-based differences in Likert scale ratings

Figure 3. URM status-based differences in Likert scale rankings

Table 2. Preliminary codes identified through semi-structured interviews

Figure 1. Likert scale ratings

Program atmosphereProgram reputation

Geographic locationFamily factors

Interview experienceProgram curriculum

Career development opportunitiesPost-residency opportunities

Personal experience with housestaffExperience with program director

Mentorship opportunitiesExperience with program faculty

Opinions of faculty/mentors at PennOpinions of family, friends, or significant others

Program's patient populationProgram responsibilities

Opinions of other Penn studentsSafety at program location

Opinions of residents at PennGender diversity of faculty/housestaff

Opinions of students/residents/faculty not at PennEthnic diversity of faculty/housestaff

Program Compensation/benefitsProgram revisit opportunities

Mean age (SD) 28.5 (2.1)Race/Ethnicity – n (%) Non-Hispanic White 96 (65) Asian 18 (12) Hispanic 18 (12) Non-Hispanic Black 13 (9) Missing/Did not answer 3 (2)Gender - n (%) Male 75 (51) Female 73 (49)Underrepresented Minority – n (%) No 117 (79) Yes 31 (21)Specialty - n (%) Internal Medicine 33 (22) Emergency Medicine 18 (12) Pediatrics 17 (11) Ophthalmology 11 (7) Obstetrics and Gynecology 7 (5) Orthopedic Surgery 7 (5) Psychiatry 7 (5) Anesthesiology 6 (4) Dermatology 6 (4) General Surgery 6 (4) Radiology 6 (4) Family Medicine 4 (3) Otorhinolaryngology 4 (3) Plastic Surgery 3 (2) Internal Medicine/Pediatrics 2 (1) Neurology 2 (1) Pathology 2 (1) Urology 2 (1) Missing/Did not answer 2 (1) Pediatric Neurology 1 (1) Internal Medicine/Dermatology 1 (1) Radiation Oncology 1 (1)Marital Status - n (%) Single 62 (42) Married 58 (39) Living with partner 26 (18) Divorced 1 (1) Engaged 1 (1)Participated in Couples Match - n (%) No 136 (92) Yes 12 (8)Year of Graduation - n (%) 2013 77 (52) 2014 71 (48)Graduated with dual degree - n (%) No 104 (70) Yes 43 (29) Missing/Did not answer 1 (1)

CODE DEFINITIONApplicant / Internal Characteristics Applicant traits (Demographics, knowledge, attitude, beliefs)External Reputation/Organizational Culture External perception of institutions or residency programsProgram, Institutional, External Characteristics Nuts and bolts of residency program (e.g. program curriculum, mission statement, etc)Resident Characteristics Observations about residents/housestaff at a residency programPatient Population Types of patients present at a given institution/residency programSources of Advice and Information Resources (people, websites, etc.) used to inform applicant decisionsDecision-making Process/Rank-list Negotiation/Decision-making Context Procedure applicants used to construct rank list/Value system applied Perceived Program Interest Perceptions of program initiated interest in applicantURM /Diversity/Gender Applicants perspectives on influence of race, gender, etc

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0123456

Program's patient population

Gender diversity of faculty/housestaff

Ethnic diversity of faculty/housestaff

Program revisitopportunities

Like

rt S

cale

Val

ue

*p = 0.02

*p < 0.01*p < 0.01 *p < 0.01

non-URMURM

Like

rt S

cale

Val

ue

0123456

Program's patient population Gender diversity of faculty/housestaff

*p < 0.01 *p < 0.01

MaleFemale

�e Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

• In final year of the intervention, there was a dramatic increase in the number of first author publications in the intervention group as compared to control group.

• Substantial improvements occurred in academic productivity over 3-year period.

• Total peer-reviewed papers accepted for publication increased by 46%.

• 50% of faculty demonstrated improvement in grant status.

• From 2009 to 2012, both intervention and control faculty improved their academic productivity substantially.

• However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two faculty groups for grant improvement or number of new publications.

50%

31%

-10%

46%

8%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

3 year* Total** First Author** PR Total PR First Author

Improvement in Academic Productivity for all Faculty Participants

Grants

Publications

**All types: peer reviewed, editorials, chapters, alternative media;PR=peer reviewed

* Percent of faculty who improved in grant

status over 3 years

Academic Productivity Outcomes: Intervention vs Control

Grants Intervention Control OR P-value% Faculty with

grant improvement over 3 years

41.6% 55.7% 0.57 0.073

Avg. # Publications 2009 2012 2009 2012 RR

Total*First author*

Peer reviewed:Total

First author

3.98 1.41

2.440.76

4.581.28

3.480.95

4.721.57

3.250.66

6.791.42

4.860.69

0.801.00

0.951.06

0.0690.988

0.7840.849

*All types: peer reviewed, editorials, chapters, alternative mediaOR= Odds Ratio; RR= increase in pub. count from 2009-2012 for intervention over controls. OR and RR are adjusted for clustering by department/division.

Ratio of New Publications in Intervention vs Control Faculty by Year

0.5

11.

52

Rat

io o

f avg

.# p

ublic

atio

ns in

inte

rven

tion

vs c

ontro

l

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013year

Total pubs Total, first authorTotal, peer reviewed Peer reviewed, first author

Cont

rol p

ubs >

inte

rven

tion

In

terv

entio

n p

ubs >

con

trol

* *

• Within the intervention group, women faculty who participated more frequently had significantly greater numbers of first author and peer reviewed publications by 2012 compared to those who participated less.

• Substantial intervention/control differences were found in grant status based on years in rank.

• In the subgroup of women assistant professors with ≥ 6 years in rank, those in the intervention were nearly 4X more likely than those in the control group to improve their grant status.

• In subgroups based on types of degrees, intervention faculty with PhDs had significantly more first author publications than control faculty with PhDs.

Degrees First AuthorTotal Pubs

First AuthorPeer Reviewed

PhD only and PhD plus Master’s

1.92 (p=0.02)

2.31 (p=0.003)

MD only 0.63

(p=0.09)

0.76

(p=0.45)

MD plus additional Master’s or PhD

1.21

(p=0.43)

0.95

(p=0.86)

p-value for effect modification 0.004 0.001

Ratio First Author Publications Stratified by Degree: Intervention vs Control

Years as AssistantProfessor at Baseline

Risk Ratio P-value

0-2 0.37 0.003

3-5 0.15 0.007

6+ 3.72 0.045

p-value for effect modification 0.002

Risk Ratios for 3-year Grant Improvement Stratified by Years in Rank

Ratios of Publications in High* vs Low Levels of Participation

Year Total**First Author**

PR Total PR First Author

2010 0.80 0.75 1.01 0.77

2011 1.12 1.20 1.32 1.24

2012 1.15 1.69+ 1.62++ 2.31+

2013 1.27 0.87 2.15++ 1.41

p-value foreffect modification

0.008 0.005 0.030 0.006

*High participation defined as ≥ 50% participation in both of the interventions**All types: peer reviewed, editorials, chapters, alternative media PR= Peer ReviewedPR= Peer reviewed+ p<0.05; ++ p<=0.01; models adjusted for track, time in rank, degree, work self-efficacy, and 2009 publications

CONCLUSIONS

How to interpret?

• Too much contamination and co-intervention?

− High visibility trial with many university and medical school strategic plans

− Simultaneous other professional development activities (65% of control group)

• Intervention was limited by:

− Assistant professors already maximally incentivized to produce papers and grants

− No release time for faculty participants

− May need to measure other outcomes

• Need more follow-up time →

− Only had two months!

Summary

1. NIH-TAC Trial documented substantial improvements in academic productivity in both intervention and control groups

2. A standardized intervention across all tracks and departments may not benefit all assistant professors equally

− By identifying specific subgroups, we can develop tailored interventions that will make a difference

3. Only through rigorous research design and RCTs will best practices be identified that truly advance women – and all faculty

How a 3-tiered Intervention Impacted Academic Productivity of Women Medical Faculty Results from NIH-TAC (Transforming Academic Culture) Randomized Trial

Alyssa F. Westring, Rebecca M. Speck , Mary D. Sammel, Emily F. Conant, Patricia Scott, Lucy Wolf Tuton, Jeane Ann Grisso, Stephanie B. Abbuhl

Mean SDAge 41 5.1Years as Assistant Professor 4.4 2.6Hours worked per week 59.4 9.6

% N

Education: MD onlyMD+ (PhD and/or other advanced degrees)PhD only or PhD + master’s degrees

34.9%37.2%27.9%

454836

Race: African AmericanWhiteAsianHispanic/other

7.6% 60.3%27.5%

4.6%

107936

6Married/domestic partner 84.7% 111

Children at home 74.8% 98

Academic track: TenureClinician-EducatorResearch

13.6%70.5%15.9%

189321

Faculty Participant* Characteristics

*N = 132

• Worked nearly 60 hours per week• 85% had a partner or were married• 75% had children living at home

GRANTSPUBLICATIONSWORK HOURSWORK SELF-EFFICACY

Academic Outcomes(Spring 2013)

NIH-TAC Trial

Departments & Divisions [N= 27 eligible; N= 27 consented]Women Assistant Professors [N= 174 eligible; N= 134 consented]

ControlN= 14 Depts/DivsN= 72 Assist Profs

Baseline Assessments (Spring 2010)

Randomization of Depts/Divs

InterventionN= 13 Depts/DivsN= 62 Assist Profs

z

Senior Leaders• Oversight• Leadership

Depts/Divs• 13 Task Force

Initiatives

Assistant Professors • Manuscript Group• Total Leadership• Skill-building

Sessions

3-Tiered Intervention

NIH R01 NS069793-05

RESULTS

6

iNTERNAL PROCESSES

■ For FY15, in collaboration with Faculty Affairs, we conducted a time-and-motion study related to faculty recruitment so as to better understand the recruitment cycle time and its processes. By stream-lining these processes, we will be able to compete

II. Ensuring Efficient Internal Processes

nationally. The figure below lists key steps in the process and the range in time based on an analysis of four standing faculty members, all from clinical departments (Figure 4).

FiGURE 5. COMBiNED MEAN OVERViEW BY STEP

FiGURE 4. KEY STEPS iN THE PROCESS

Step in the Action Range in Days Process (Low - High)

Step 1 Date Ad Posted on FAPD Website N/A

Step 2 1st Round Interviews (88 – 250)

Step 3 2nd Round Interviews (20 – 195)

Step 4 Unofficial Draft Letter (9 – 165)

Step 5 Department Prepares RTC/RAC Documentation (0 – 33)

Step 6* RAC Review Completed (30 – 252)

Step 7* CPUP Review Completed (11 – 35)

Step 8 Official Letter Approved (11 – 252)

Step 9 PSOM COAP Review (24 – 79)

Step 10 PSC Official Approval (7 – 21)

Step 11 Candidate Signs Letter (42 – 84)

* Steps 6 & 7 run parallel and are not additive

150

100

50

0

138

9989 86

22

85

45

15

63

17

1-2Steps

2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-8 7-8 8-9 9-10 10-11

Da

ys


■ The combined mean for the days to complete the key eleven steps, is 637 days (Range: 485 - 1052 days)(Figure 5). When eliminating the steps beyond step 8, the mean becomes 495 days (Range: 175 – 936). Opportunities to reduce the time for recruit-ment rest in the scheduling of interviews within each department and the Research Advisory Committee (RAC) Review.

■ Recruitment of the first African American basic sci-entist since 2001 was analyzed. The total cycle time was 248 days. The speed of the process, the Presi-dential Professorship and strong engagement of the Department Chair contributed to the successful hire of this candidate.

FiGURE 6. SALARY ANALYSiS BY GENDER AND EXPERiENCE COHORT

FY13 salary including stipends more than 8 years since promotion

FiGURE 7. SPACE ANALYSiSTotal research expenditures/NSF Full Professors

25%

15%

5%

-5%

-15%

75pMedian25p

75pMedian25p

20%

659

49315.4%

21.1%

8.1%

485

342

8.1% 7.7%

-2.3%

278

Female(n=18)

All(n=51)

Female(n=11)

Male(n=40) Male

(n=63)

203

0.3%

-2.8%

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

■ The OID and the Decision Support Analysis collabo-rated on a further analysis of faculty salaries and space utilization that was completed in February of 2015. Initial report findings were shared with Dean Jameson, and the final findings were presented to the Basic Science Department Chairs in June 2015. The analysis will be updated every two years and shared with key stakeholders, thus affirming the value of institutional transparency. Key takeaways will help continue the dialogue (Figure 6 & 7).

■ The OID is in the early planning phases of evaluating the Diversity Search Advisor program through a 2-phased research investigation that will survey advi-sors to assess their experience in the role and then plan a pilot randomized controlled trial to assess its efficacy.

iNTERNAL PROCESSES

8

iii. Maintaining Financial Stewardship

■ The OID is conducting an assessment of grants that relate to health disparities research to support the launch of a Special interest Group on Healthcare Disparities. Our goal is to identify faculty with an expertise and mutual interest in a Health Disparity/Special Interest Group (SIG). This information will be helpful when crafting text to use for grant submissions. It will further inform PSOM’s expenditures related to diversity.

■ For FY15, we are in the initial planning phases of developing a one-day grant research proposal workshop that will focus on skill building in a small group, allowing early and mid-career level stand-ing faculty to make their grant proposals more competitive and adequately prepare faculty by delivering the appropriate resources (i.e., ongoing follow-up and feedback directly from grant training personnel).

■ Continuing our commitment to faculty develop-ment, the OID invested in Dr. C. Neill Epperson’s (Department of Psychiatry) participation in the Executive Leadership program (ELAM). Next year, there will be two ELAM fellows, Dr. Susan Furth and Dr. Kathleen Montone

■ The Faculty Opportunity Fund (FOF) enhances the academic strength and diversity of Penn faculty and is reserved for those candidates who will make extraordinary scholarly contributions. Between FY2012 and FY2015, the FOF funds distributed to PSOM have more than tripled (from $184,200 to $558,402, respectively). Thirteen FOF requests have been submitted to the Provost’s Office for FY2015. Ten were approved. (Figure 8).

FiGURE 8. APPROVED FACULTY OPPORTUNiTY FUND (FOF) BY PROVOST OFFiCE

8 8

10

33

5

22

02007

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

FiNANCiAL STEWARDSHiP


* Cultural competence as defined by the DES is an individual who believes the institution has the capacity to make creative use of its diverse workforce in a way that meets business goals and enhances performance.

– DES User Guide

iV. Exceeding Expectation of Primary Stakeholders

■ In Q3 of 2015 the OID launched the Diversity Engagement Survey (DES) to measure the institu-tional climate and culture using the lens of diversity and inclusion within the University of Pennsylvania. A validated 22-item survey, developed by the AAMC in conjunction with UMass Medical School, charac-terizes the inclusiveness of the academic learning environment and assesses baseline strengths and areas for improvement that is related to inclusion and diversity efforts.

The DES has been piloted in 14 AAMC member insti-tutions. The OID has since launched the DES across the UPenn community, including the Perelman

School of Medicine, the School of Nursing, Penn Dental Medicine, Penn Social Policy & Practice, the Penn School of Veterinary Medicine, and select units within Penn Medicine and The Children’s Hos-pital of Philadelphia (CHOP), thus joining 14 other AAMC member institutions that have also piloted the DES for their students, faculty, and staff. Over 3,500 responses were received across the University of Pennsylvania. A preliminary review indicates that Penn has an opportunity to enhance awareness and diversity in terms of cultural competency. Com-pared to the national benchmark, Penn ranks in the bottom third in this particular category (Figure 9).

ENViRONMENTAL & iNSTiTUTiONAL SUPPORT

FiGURE 9. DiVERSiTY ENGAGEMENT CLiMATE CLUSTERS

Access to Opportunity Factor

Equitable Reward and Recognition Factor and Common Purpose

Trust Factor, Sense of Belonging

Appreciation of Individual Attributes Factor, Respect Factor

Cultural Competence Factor*

Top Third

Middle Third

Bottom Third

Vision & Purpose Cluster

Vision / Purpose Cluster

Vision / Purpose Cluster

AppreciationCluster

CamaraderieCluster

10

■ The results of the 2014 Medical School Graduation Questionnaire (MSGQ) for the PSOM highlighted several improvements compared to 2013. Based on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = least satisfied to 5 = very satisfied), respondents noted their overall satisfaction with the following aspects:

° To the item, “Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of my medical education,” (Figure 10) the MSGQ results showed a 0.1 % increase from 2013 to 2014 (4.5 to 4.6, respectively). Moreover, when compared to national averages for all schools, PSOM satisfaction scores were 0.3 percentage points higher, thus indicating that PSOM is progressing well.

° To the item, “My knowledge or opinion was influenced or changed by becoming more aware of the perspectives of individuals from different backgrounds,” (Figure 11) the MSGQ results showed PSOM increased 0.2 % from 2013 to 2014. Additionally, in comparison to national average of all schools, PSOM was 0.2 % also higher.

° To the item, “The diversity within my medical school class enhanced my training and skills to work with individuals from different backgrounds,” (Figure 12) the MSGQ results indicate that PSOM increased 0.2 % from 2013 to 2014. Additionally, when compared to the national average of U.S. academic medical schools, PSOM was 0.3% higher, clearly indicating that we are tracking in the right direction.

ENViRONMENTAL & iNSTiTUTiONAL SUPPORT

FiGURE 10. OVERALL SATiSFACTiON MEAN RESPONSE RATE

FiGURE 12. DiVERSiTY WiTHiN MY MEDiCAL SCHOOL MEAN RESPONSE RATE

AllSchools

AllSchools

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

4.7

3.9

4.5

3.8

4.6

4.0

4.3

3.7

2013 20142012

PSOM

FiGURE 11. DiFFERENT BACKGROUND MEAN RESPONSE RATE

AllSchools

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

4.3

4.0

4.24.0

2013 20142012

PSOM

2013 20142012

PSOM


UME: Undergraduate Medical Education (Medical Students)

BGS: Biomedical Graduate Studies (Graduate Students)

The pathway to status has several entry points, particularly when considering the preparation needed for a research focused faculty member. Full candidate searches may have occurred prior to internal candidates achieving faculty status.

FiGURE 14. UNDERGRADUATE MEDiCAL EDUCATiON (UME): 2013-2015

FiGURE 13. PiPELiNE TO FACULTY STATUS

CLiNiCAL & RESEARCH METRiCS OVERViEW

UiM: Underrepresented In Medicine; UME: Undergraduate Medical Education

Diversity Domains

2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15

Female Male UIM Asians

Non-Traditional

Non-Science Majors

First Generation College Graduate

Socioeconomic Class

LGBT*

Underrepresented in Medicine

60

50

40

30

20

10

00% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Gender & Ethnicity

2013 2014 2015*LGBT statistics were not recorded until 2013

Although performance metrics have been exceeded based on the balanced scorecard (Figure 2), it is important to track progress at every stage of the faculty pipeline (Figure 13). Future progress will be dictated by the diversity of the pipeline.

Undoubtedly, strides have been made within the pipeline in the last two years (Figures 15-17), however opportunities continue to exist to capitalize on the rich diversity of the under-graduate medical student population (Figure 14).

BPP: Biomedical Postdoctoral Programs (Post Docs)

GME: Graduate Medical Education (House Staff) Faculty (Standing Faculty, Tenure and CE Tracks)

12

FiGURE 15. BiOMEDiCAL GRADUATE STUDiES (BGS) MATRiCULANTS, 2013-2015

FiGURE 16. BiOMEDiCAL POSTDOCTORAL PROGRAMS (POST DOCS) DiVERSiTY: 2011-2014


* In 2015, the Graduate Group in Epidemiology and Biostatistics was integrated into BGS. The 2015 numbers include two additional PhD programs, not included in previous years.

Gender Data

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%2013 20132014 20142015* 2015*

FemaleMale

Ethnic Diversity Data

HispanicAsianPacific IslanderAmerican IndianAfrican American

Gender Data

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%7/2012 - 6/2013 7/2013 - 6/2014 7/2014 - 5/2015

FemaleMale

Ethnic Group Data

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%7/2011 – 6/2012 7/2012 – 6/2013 7/2013 – 6/2014

American Indian or Alaska Native

Black or African American

More than one ethnicity claimed

White

Asian

Hispanic or Latino

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Declined to identify


FiGURE 17. UNDERREPRESENTED iN MEDiCiNE (UiM) DATA BY GENDER AND ETHNiCiTY

FiGURE 18. FACULTY (STANDiNG FACULTY, TENURE AND CE TRACKS)

URMAll MinoritiesWomen

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009


5%

5%

5%

7%

7%

5%

5%

20%

19%

21%29%

28%

27%

23%31%

24%31%

23%30%

22%29%

Ranked Matched

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

2013 20132014 20142015 2015

UIM FemaleUIM MaleAfrican AmericanHispanic

Graduate Medical Education (GME): 2013-2015

14

The Office of Inclusion & Diversity wishes to thank the faculty leads from the four anchor programs for their col-laborative efforts to enhance diversity at the University of Pennsylvania. These programs are considered anchor pro-grams because of their faculty leader-ship, their impact on at least two touch points in the pipeline, and their acqui-sition of external funding to meet their goals. These programs are illustrated in Figure 13, page 11.

• The Alliance of Minority Physicians supports underrepresented minority medical students, house staff, and faculty in mentoring families to en-hance networking and professional development. Faculty Lead: iris Reyes, MD

• FOCUS on Health and Leadership for Women supports the professional development of women faculty by offering seminars and opportunities for networking across Penn Medi-cine. Faculty Lead: Stephanie Abbuhl, MD

• Penn Medicine Program for LGBT Health is a unique interdisciplinary program that supports the health and wellbeing of LGBT populations by advancing the LGBT climate and its visibility, health education, research, patient care, and community outreach. Faculty Lead: Baligh Yehia, MD, MPP, MSHP

• The Center of Excellence in Health Education and Research supports programs of excellence in health professions education for individuals from racial and ethnic minorities that are underrepresented in the health professions workforce, serving a critical mass of minority students and faculty for over three decades. Faculty Lead: Jerry Johnson, MD The OID wishes to thank the OID Advisory Council for its guidance

and support in the first year of the Council’s existence.

INCLUSION AND DIVERSITY ADVISORY COUNCIL

Stephanie Abbuhl, MD Professor and Vice Chair for Faculty Affairs, Department of Emergency Medicine, Penn Medicine

Tarik Asmerom,(Student) University of Pennsylvania, PSOM

Horace Delisser, MD Associate Professor of Medicine; Associ-ate Dean for Diversity and Inclusion; Diversity Search Advisor, Department of Medicine, Penn Medicine

Arnaldo J. Diaz, PhD Assistant Dean for Research Training Programs; Adjunct Assistant Professor of Pharmacology, Office of Research Training Programs, PSOM, BGS

Deborah Driscoll, MD Professor and Chair, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; Interim Director, Center for Research on Repro-duction & Women’s Health, Penn Medicine

Jessica Fowler, MD, MPH (Chief Resident) Department of Pediat-rics, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

Karen Grasse, MS, MPhil Associate Director, Faculty Affairs and Professional Development, PSOM

James Guevara, MD, MPH Senior Diversity Search Advisor, PSOM; Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Epidemiology, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

Jerry Johnson, MD Chief, Division of Geriatric Medicine; Director, Center of Excellence for Diversity In Health Education and Research; Professor, Department of Medicine, Penn Medicine

Jack Ludmir, MD Chair, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; PAH Vice Chair, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology: Chief, Section of Perinatology, Obstetrics and Gynecology, PAH

Sarah Millar, PhD Professor of Dermatology; Director, Research in Dermatology Director, NRSA Training Grant Penn Medicine

Victoria Mulhern Executive Director, Faculty Affairs and Professional Development, PSOM

Giang Nguyen, MD, MPH, MSCE Medical Director, Penn Family Care; Assistant Professor of Family Medicine and Community Health, PSOM

iris Reyes, MD Associate Professor of Clinical Emergency Medicine, Advisory Dean, PSOM

Chase Richard, (Student) University of Pennsylvania, PSOM

Erle Robertson, PhD Professor, Department of Microbiology, PSOM

Susan Ross, PhD Professor and Interim Chair, Microbiology, PSOM

Susan Weiss, PhD Professor of Microbiology; Associate Dean for Postdoctoral Research, Penn Medicine

Baligh Yehia, MD, MPP, MSHP Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, PSOM; Director, Penn Medicine Program for LGBT Health

OiD ADViSORY COUNCiL

office of inclusion and diversity - home | perelman school ... · the office of inclusion and...

Documents