Who will be the faculty of the future? Results of a 5-year study growing educators using an immersive third postgraduate year (PGY-3) faculty development mini-fellowship

Figures & data

Table

Practice points

A shortage of qualified teaching faculty is anticipated in the future. Potential faculty can often be identified during residency training and while resident teaching skills can be improved, they do not necessarily improve in concert with clinical skills. A four-week immersive faculty development fellowship can improve teaching skills; particularly in learner feedback and in the conduct of research. Residents are more likely to pursue faculty positions after completion of a mini-faculty development fellowship while in residency training.

Table 1.  PG-3 resident ratings (N = 15) of six core curricular topics of the faculty development fellowship

Core curriculum topic^a	M (SD)
Clinical precepting	4.7 (0.4)
Small group teaching	4.5 (0.5)
Large group teaching/lecture skills	4.9 (0.3)
Learner feedback and assessment	4.8 (0.4)
Academic career progression and career development	4.7 (0.4)
Scholarly activity	4.7 (0.5)

Note: ^aRatings on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “poor” to 3 = “average” to 5 = “excellent”).

Table 2.  Jobs after residency graduation and at study conclusion

Subject	Job after residency graduation	Job at study conclusion
1	Clinical practice	Residency faculty
2	Residency faculty	Residency faculty
3	Clinical practice	Clinical practice
4	Clinical practice	MPH/Faculty development program
5	Residency faculty	Residency faculty
6	Woman's health fellowship	Residency faculty
7	Clinical practice	Clinical practice
8	Residency faculty	Residency faculty
9	Clinical practice	Clinical practice
10	Clinical practice	Clinical practice
11	Clinical practice	Clinical practice
12	Residency faculty	Residency faculty
13	Residency faculty	Residency faculty
14	Clinical practice	Clinical practice
15	Residency faculty	Residency faculty

Table 3.  Scholarly projects of PG-3 graduates of mini-fellowship

Participant #	Clinical investigation	Case report	Curriculum	Book chapter	Review article
1		S	W
2	D	S, A
3	D
4	D
5	D, S, A
6	D, S, A
7		S			S, A
8	D, S, A
9	D, S, A	S, A
10		S		W, A
11		S	W, I
12			W
13		S
14	D, S			W, A
15	D		W, I

Notes: D = designed; S = submitted for presentation or publication in peer-reviewed meeting or journal; A = accepted for presentation or publication; W = written; not submitted for peer review; I = implemented in residency program.

Table 4.  Program director (N = 8) teaching skill ratings of new faculty without and with faculty development mini-fellowship experience

Teaching skill^a	New faculty, no fellowship M (SD)	New faculty; fellowship M (SD)	Wilcoxon statistic	p value
Clinic precepting	3.5 (0.5)	4.1 (0.4)	15	0.03
Small group teaching	3.1 (0.4)	3.8 (0.5)	15	0.03
Lecture skills	3.1 (0.4)	4.0 (0.8)	15	0.04
Learner feedback and assessment	3.0 (0.0)	4.1 (0.6)	28	0.01
Understanding academic progression and career development	2.9 (0.6)	3.5 (0.5)	13	0.13
Scholarly activities	2.5 (0.5)	3.6 (0.5)	28	0.01

Notes: ^aProgram directors used 5-point Likert scale to rate teaching skill (1 = “not prepared” to 3 = “prepared and functioning at average junior faculty level” to 5 = “very well prepared and functioning well above average junior faculty level”).