Meeting: School of Medicine Faculty Senate

Date: Wednesday, October 17th 5:15-6:45 pm, MSOB x303

Voting Members Present:

Sabine Girod (Chair) , Robin Apple, Stephen Baccus, Joanna Badger, Donna Bouley, Brendan Carvalho, Joanna Wysocka alternate for James Chen, Benjamin Chung, Waldo Concepcion, Carol Conrad, Edward Damrose, Ronald Davis, David Drover, Lauren Gerson, Micheal Haberecht, Theodore Jardetzky, Larry Hammer, Robert Herfkens, Paula Hillard, Peter Kao , Teri Longacre, Jose Maldonado, Stephen Montgomery, Jose Montoya, Yasodha Natkunam, Richard Sibley, Yuen So, Scott Soltys.

Non-Voting Attendees:

Simal Ozen, Michelle Orozco, Clarence Braddock, Natalie Rasgon, Neil Gesundheit, Julia Tussing

AGENDA ITEM PRESENTATION/DISCUSSION DECISION/AC

TION Review/Approval of September Minutes

• A motion was made to approve the minutes from the September 19th, SOM Faculty Senate meeting. The minutes from the September 19th, 2012, meeting was approved.

Clarence Braddock Student Mistreatment

Review of Existing Data • AAMC Graduation Questionnaire Data (UME) • Respectful Educator Conduct Committee Reports • Student Forum Data

Next Steps • Identify • Inform • Transform

Important Changes to 2012 AAMC GQ Student Mistreatment Section “The assessment of negative experiences in workplace, educational, and clinical settings has been found to provide more valuable data when the focus is on the behaviors experienced rather than whether such experiences are perceived as mistreatment. Therefore, for the 2012 GQ the definition of mistreatment and the gateway question [Have you personally been mistreated during medical school?] were removed.”

• New survey presents a list of fifteen behaviors, and asks: – 1) frequency of behavior, and – 2) Whether the behavior happened to them or they witnessed it happening to another

student.

• The survey also asks: – 1) perpetrators of the behaviors,

Page2 

– 2) whether the incident was reported and to whom, – 3) satisfaction with the results of reporting, and – 4) Reasons for not reporting.

• Due to changes in the survey format, data from this year cannot be compared to data from past years. Only the current year’s data is reported.

• Students reported personally experiencing any of the mistreatment behaviors during medical

school: – At least ONCE

• 55.6% of Stanford students (35 out of 63) • 47.1% of students nationally

• Students reported personally witnessing any of the mistreatment behaviors during medical school:

– At least ONCE • 28.6% of Stanford students (18 out of 63) • 30% of students nationally

Type and Frequency: 2012 AAMC GQ (n=63)

How frequently you personally experienced the following 

behavior:

Once Occasionally Frequently

Stanford (%, #)

All Stanford ( %, #)

All Stanford ( %, #)

All

Publicly humiliated 24.2% 15 16.9% 16.1% 10 16.3% 1.6% 1 1.0%

Required to perform personal services 11.1% 7 5.7% 4.8% 3 3.5% 0.0% 0 0.2%

Subjected of offensive sexist remarks 6.5% 4 6.4% 14.5% 9 8.7% 0.0% 0 0.7%

Denied opportunities for training or rewards based solely on gender

6.5% 4 2.4% 4.8% 3 3.1% 0.0% 0 0.4%

Received lower evaluations or grades solely because of gender

6.3% 4 4.4% 1.6% 1 1.9% 0.0% 0 0.3%

Subjected to offensive remarks/names related to sexual orientation

6.3% 4 0.8% 3.2% 2 1.4% 0.0% 0 0.2%

Threatened with physical harm 4.8% 3 1.1% 1.6% 1 0.4% 1.6% 1 0.0%

Subjected to racially or ethnically offensive remarks

3.2% 2 3.3% 7.9% 5 3.3% 0.0% 0 0.3%

Page3 

Type and Frequency: 2012 AAMC GQ

How frequently you personally experienced the 

following behavior:

Once Occasionally Frequently

Stanford (%, #)

All Stanford (%, #)

All Stanford (%, #)

All 

Received lower evaluations or grades solely because of race or ethnicity

3.2% 2 1.4% 1.6% 1 0.9% 0.0% 0 0.2%

Subjected to unwanted sexual advances 1.6% 1 2.6% 4.8% 3 1.9% 0.0% 0 0.2%

Physically harmed 0.0% 0 1.8% 3.2% 2 0.2% 1.6% 1 0.0%

Asked to exchange sexual favors for grades or other rewards

0.0% 0 0.1% 1.6% 1 0.1% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Denied opportunities for training or rewards based solely on race or ethnicity

0.0% 0 0.9% 3.2% 2 1.3% 0.0% 0 0.6%

Denied opportunities for training or rewards based solely on sexual orientation

0.0% 0 0.2% 1.6% 1 0.1% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Received lower evaluations or grades solely because of sexual orientation

0.0% 0 0.2% 1.6% 1 0.1% 0.0% 0 0.0%

Have you personally experienced any of the following behaviors?

Once: Occasionally: Frequently:

Page4 

Sources of mistreatment behaviorspersonally experienced by students

Mistreatment: General awareness

74.2%� 76.7%� 73.6%�

61.0%�68.0%�

74.2%�

84.5%�

0.0%�

20.0%�

40.0%�

60.0%�

80.0%�

100.0%�

2007� 2008� 2009� 2010� 2011� 2012� 2012�

Stanford� Stanford� Stanford� Stanford� Stanford� Stanford� All�Schools�

Perc

enta

ge�of�s

tude

nts�who

�ans

wer

ed�in

�the�

affir

ma

ve�

Are�you�aware�that�your�school�has�policies�regarding�the�mistreatment�of�medical�students?�

1

Page5 

Mistreatment: General awareness

46.8%�

67.4%�

0.0%�

10.0%�

20.0%�

30.0%�

40.0%�

50.0%�

60.0%�

70.0%�

80.0%�

90.0%�

100.0%�

Stanford�U�(n=63)� All�Schools�(n=12,251)�

Perc

enta

ge�o

f�stu

dent

s�who

�ans

wer

ed�in

�th

e�af

firm

ave

�

Do�you�know�procedures�for�repor ng�mistreatment?�

Reporting of personal mistreatment

• Did you report any of the behaviors to a designated faculty member or a member of the medical school administration empowered to handle such complaints?

• Answered YES: – 18.2% Stanford (6/33)

– 16.8% nationally

16.7%�

16.7%�

16.7%�

50.0%�

66.7%�

21.8%�

22.3%�

20.1%�

14.2%�

52.1%�

%� 20%� 40%� 60%� 80%� 100%�

Dean�of�Students��

Other�medical�school�administrator�

Other�

Designated�counselor/advocate/ombudsman��

Faculty�member��

Percentage�of�Students�

To�whom�did�you�report�the�behavior(s)?�

All�Schools�(n=951)� Stanford�U�(n=6)�

Page6 

Reporting of personal mistreatment

7.1%�

21.7%�

12.2%�

36.8%�

27.3%�

59.1%�

0.0%�

8.6%�

20.0%�

37.1%�

48.6%�

57.1%�

%� 20%� 40%� 60%� 80%� 100%�

Other��

I�resolved�the�issue�myself�

I�did�not�know�what�to�do��

I�did�not�think�anything�would�be�done�about�it��

Fear�of�reprisal�

The�incident�did�not�seem�important�enough�to�report��

Percentage�of�Students�

If�there�were�any�incidents�of�these�behaviors�that�you�did�not�report,�why�didn't�you�report�them?�

All�Schools�(n=5,740)� Stanford�U�(n=35)�

Goals and Action Steps

Identify

• Identify trends in location or discipline of inappropriate behaviors

Inform

• Inform our entire community interacting with students of our policy, process, seriousness of issues, and commitment of leadership

Transform

• Transform the institutional culture of our learning environment

IN PROCESS

IN PROCESS

Inform: Next Steps

Share and discuss data with key leadership at affiliated sites, and Department Chairs with highest reports of mistreatment incidents.

Communication to our community on our commitment and institutional value

Page7 

Dean’s Newsletter, Office of Medical Education NewsletterDiscussion topic at Leadership meetings that span SUMC (Executive Committee, Faculty Senate, CCAP, Department meetings, Hospital Leadership committees, GME Office, etc.)

Annual required confirmation by faculty and students that they have received and understand our policy and process

Commitment of hospital affiliates to adhere to policy in revised affiliation agreements

Goals and Action Steps

Identify

• Identify trends in location or discipline of inappropriate behaviors

Inform

• Inform our entire community interacting with students of our policy, process, seriousness of issues, and commitment of leadership

Transform

• Transform the institutional culture of our learning environment

IN PROCESS

IN PROCESS

FORMULATING ACTION STEPS

Simal Ozen Stanford University Postdoctoral Association

Transform: Action Steps

Create an educational program with video case-based scenarios highlighting the ‘gray areas’ of student mistreatment

Modeled after ‘sexual harassment’ training program at Stanford with live actorsCould be shown at faculty meetings, grand rounds, resident orientation, etc. Engage students to develop case scenarios

Desired elements of cultural changeActive leadership engagement at highest levelsVisible partnership with Affiliated Hospitals Involvement in national effortsOpportunities for shared reflectionTransparencyReward and celebrate areas with positive learning environmentsIncludes all involved in clinical environment (faculty, residents, nurses, staff, students)

Focus areas: Mentoring - Career development - Interactions with fellow scientists and faculty - Benefits (commute passes, childcare, etc

Page8 

Page9 

Advocacy:

Representation of Stanford postdocsSUPD Annual Survey

Networking:

SUPD website Research SymposiumPostdoctoral Research AwardsMonthly Council MeetingsHappy-HoursSocial gatherings (picnics, trips)Postdoc Appreciation BBQSUPD - Epic WeekSPIF (Stanford Postdoc Initiative Fund)

Road Map:

Agenda -- Organizational Mission and Domains of Activities -- Profile of Postdoctoral Scholars at Stanford -- National Context SUPD Annual Survey 2012: 10.10.12 - 10.24.12 - Two-focus areas: 1) the quality of the research and career development mentoring; 2) the overall cost of living in the area. - In collaboration with OPA - Consultants: Dr. Michaela Kiernan and Dr. Rania Sanford - Method: 1) Stratified random sampling (n=596) among postdocs with >1 year of experience. 2) Strata: the number of years as a postdoc and the affiliated school. - Incentives: Raffle drawing for $25 Amazon Gift Cards with 25% chance of winning.

 Page10

Preliminary Data: 134/596 by 10.13.12

In the past year, how often did you meet with your Faculty Advisor (mentor) to discuss - The progress of your primary research project in a one-on-one meeting- The progress of your career development in a one-on-one meeting

Considering your overall experience in the past year, how satisfied are you with the mentorship you have received from your Faculty Advisor?

Research mentorship Career development mentorship

Progress of research Progress of career development

 Page11

Preliminary Data: 134/596

How many Stanford faculty (excluding your Faculty Advisor) do you feel you could approach to request a recommendation letter?

Postdocs in some departments of the School of Medicine are required to have a formal Scientific Advisory Committee requirement. The Committee is comprised of 2-3 faculty with whom the postdoc regularly meets and discusses his or her research and career development.

To what extent would you be in favor of requiring postdocs and their Faculty Advisors to form a Scientific Advisory Committee?

SPIF (Stanford Postdoc Initiative Funds): “In need of funding for your next postdoc event? Check out SPIF!” Launched in 2010 - Funding of a variety of projects: Social gathering for School of Earth Sciences postdocs Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) club Seminars and BBQ events for VA postdocs International Security and Cooperation Movie Series Seed fund for CPUs: Computational People United at Stanford LGBTQ Group for Stanford Postdocs

Rania Sanford Postdoctoral Presentation Rania Sanford Postdoctoral Presentation

EBAE: Neurophysiology discussion group Stanford Symposium on the Biology of Hunter-Gatherers Domains of OPA’s Activity: Governance

• Provost’s Advisory Committee on Postdoctoral Affairs-- Reports to the Provost via Patricia Gumport, Vice Provost for Graduate Education

• Chair: Merritt Maduke, Associate Professor, MCP • Former Chair: Michael Longaker, MD, Surgery • Policy development • Postdoc term limits • Family Friendly and Leave Provisions • Postdoc and Faculty Expectations • Audits and Compliance • 25% of postdocs in 2009 had expired contracts. Currently: ~ 10% • Visa compliance. Process for exceptions reviews (H1B)

Operations All appointment-related actions ~550 new postdocs start every year. 350-500 leave every year. Renewals of contracts and termination of appointments. Staff and faculty guidance and support 20 staff training courses offered in 2011: Policy, Procedures and Business Practices. 429 staff participants. Financial Managing and oversight of $15M cash flow annually Demographic Highlights at SoM

• 1248 Postdocs. 39 Under-represented minorities (3.1%) • 2/3 are in Clinical Departments • Funding Sources:

– Sponsored grants only: 53% – Individual fellowships and Training Grant Support only: 37% – A combination of the above: 10%

• Most within 2 years of research after the PhD or MD • 60% International

~15% have families

 Page12

 Page13

Office of Postdoctoral Affairs postdocs.stanford.edu

131

80

50

37 36

16 14 133 4 1 2 2 2 1 1 10

102030405060708090

100110120130140150160

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Postdoc and PI Distribution at SoM

394 SoM Faculty are Postdoc Mentors. Mode 1:1.  Range Max: 1 to 23.   (Double the range max in all other schools) 

75% of faculty (295) have 50% of all Postdocs2% of faculty (9)  have 11% of all Postdocs

Number of Postdocs

Number of PIs

Source: Faculty Mentoring Report, Office of Postdoctoral Affairs. March 2012

Office of Postdoctoral Affairs postdocs.stanford.edu

320 357 318 307

294271 326 317

210 226 232 268

112

178202

310

85

187 126

34

46

23 91 12

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2009 2010 2011 2012

Distribution of Postdoctoral Scholars in SoMby Year of Training (2009‐2012)

First Year of Training Second Year Third Year Fourth Year Fifth Year Sixth+ Year

 Page14

Office of Postdoctoral Affairs postdocs.stanford.edu

Career Trajectories (June 2011‐September 2012)

* Based on official record of termination (reported by postdoc to department).  

Academic‐Faculty Position, 19%

Academic‐Non Faculty, 33%

Another Postdoc or Residency, 13%

Government, 1%

Industry‐Non Research, 2%

Industry‐Research, 10%

Medical Practice, 5%

Personal, 1%

School‐Pursuing Another Degree, 

2%

Undecided, 9%Did Not Respond, 

5%

N=502

Office of Postdoctoral Affairs postdocs.stanford.edu

2.56

3.493.32

4.47

3.24

1.52

1.95

2.792.92

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Academic‐Faculty Position Academic‐Non Faculty GovernmentIndustry‐Non Research Industry‐Research

Source: Career Outcomes Report.  Office of Postdoctoral Affairs.  November 2011.

Years of Training

Time in Training and Job Choice (2007‐2011)

Intramural Fellowships

Page15 

• $1.46M in fellowships support ~50 postdocs in 2012-2013 working with mostly assistant or associate professors through Dean’s Postdoctoral Fellowships

Mentoring and Cohort-Based Programs: • Berry Fellowship Program in Children’s Health • NEW McCormick Fellowship to support women in academic medicine.

Courses and Seminars • New Offerings in 2010 in alignment with NPA Competencies

Discipline-specific conceptual knowledge | Research skill development | Communication skills | Professionalism | Leadership and management skills | Responsible conduct of research

• In 2011-2012, 32 faculty members gave seminars and talks related to training, academic preparation and career success.

Most Popular (2011-2012 participation): Topics in Scientific Management (688 postdocs) Postdoc Academic Chats (365 postdocs) Advanced English Skills for Non-Native Speakers (180 postdocs) Guide to NIH K Award (110 postdocs) Mentoring Workshops (86 postdocs) Support for Faculty

• Dedicated section on OPA website • Quarterly Updates email Newsletter • Individual consultations and small group workshops for junior faculty • Professional development of support staff

Welfare and Benefits Initiatives • Family Healthcare Fund (FHF): By December 2012, approximately $500K will have been given

to 302 postdoc families over two years to offset costs of dependent medical insurance coverage. $240/month.

– In 2013, postdoc out-of-pocket expense to cover a family will be $286/month (down from $618, or $378 after subsidy in 2012).

• Postdoc Assistance Program: 24/7 Crisis Hotline • Faculty/Staff Help Center

Postdoc Hardship Fund National Context

• One of early Offices of Postdoctoral Affairs in the US • Model and collegial resource to other institutions (eg., Harvard, USC, Kyoto University) • Possibly the largest population of postdoctoral scholars on a single campus • Broad domain-of-activities in contrast to peers • Sustaining Member of the National Postdoctoral Association • Active in the AAMC Great/Postdoctorate Leaders Section

Page16 

Future Outlook • NIH Taskforce on Biomedical Workforce Report (June 2012) Highlights:

– Evidence of mentoring processes – Preparation for non-academic careers – Status of postdocs: data gathering and analysis; alumni tracking; and long-term career

outcomes Challenges as New Opportunities

• Postdoctoral Mentoring Initiative Taskforce to: • Identify effective mentoring practices and expectations • Evaluate and recommend implementation strategies • Learn from practices in other training and professionalization environments • Structured Interviews in Fall Quarter. Taskforce Meetings to Follow.

• Broad and diverse representation from clinical as well as basic science departments, different lab sizes, and academic rank.