"How to article:" guidelines for serving on an expert panel

Academics in medicine are frequently asked to serve on panels to discuss their clinical, research, education, administrative or personal expertise. While panel discussions are often the highlight of a conference or event, in the medical literature, there is very little published on how an individual can effectively prepare and present as an expert panelist. This paper offers guidelines that will enable academics to prepare, deliver, and engage in active dialogue during a panel discussion. Specific tactics include how to accept invitations to serve on a panel, conducting pre-panel conference meetings and background research, preparing concise opening statements and new insights, connecting with the audience, answering questions in a collaborative spirit, and debriefing after the panel. These guidelines will be valuable to any individual invited to serve on a panel discussion and will promote future panelists in engaging in constructive and fulfilling dialogue, with the ultimate goal of leaving the audience with a greater understanding of the topic of discourse.

Disrupting Faculty-on-Faculty Bullying in Academic Medicine: An Innovative Workshop

Introduction

Bullying, a severe form of mistreatment, occurs when an individual in an authority position intentionally imposes negative persistent behaviors on a target. In academic medicine, bullying is used to impede the target's professional growth. While there is abundant literature on how to disrupt other forms of mistreatment, the literature related to bullying among academic medical faculty members is scarce.

Methods

We developed an interactive workshop on disrupting faculty-on-faculty bullying in academic medicine, with a focus on gender-based bullying, following Kern's model of curriculum development. The workshop consisted of three didactics on the scope of bullying in academic medicine: identifying bullying behaviors, learning strategies to mitigate bullying, and understanding what constitutes comprehensive antibullying policies. The workshop also included three small-group activities to reinforce learned concepts.

Results

Eighty-seven faculty attended one of three workshops held over a 6-month period. We received 24 completed evaluations for a 28% rate of return. Most participants rated workshop activities as being well taught and of great value. Many respondents commented that after participating in the workshop, they realized they had likely experienced or witnessed bullying in their careers and that mitigating bullying required effort at multiple levels (individual, institutional, national).

Discussion

This workshop fills a need in academic medicine through addressing how faculty members and institutions can help themselves and others to disrupt bullying. We will continue to disseminate this workshop at national conferences and at individual institutions. This resource will allow other educators to offer the workshop at their home institutions.

Why Gender-Based Bullying Is Normalized in Academic Medicine: Experiences and Perspectives of Women Physician Leaders

Background: Bullying has been identified as a problem in the academic medicine. Bullying behaviors persist because organizational cultures have allowed them to become normalized. In academic medicine, women are more likely to be bullied than men. Our purpose was to explain why gender-based bullying persists in academic medicine and identify mitigation strategies. Methods: We interviewed senior faculty women physicians who graduated from the Hedwig van Ameringen Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine^® program. We asked participants about their experience with bullying and its consequence on their careers. We also asked about the types of culture they think perpetuates bullying and their thoughts on how best to mitigate bullying. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using Averbuch's Cycle of Academic Bullying as a framework. Results: We sampled 30 women physician leaders for interviews from a pool of 96 volunteers who had screened positive for experiencing bullying. All 30 either experienced or witnessed bullying during their careers. Bullying behaviors included public humiliation, defamation, verbal disparagement, and social isolation. Subjects suffered numerous negative effects from bullying such as stress, burnout, depression, and having to leave the job. Participants believed bullying behaviors persisted due to hierarchical organizational cultures. Barriers to reporting and mitigation were thought to originate from lack of leadership combined with ineffective policies and reporting mechanisms. Conclusions: Dysfunctional hierarchies embedded in organizational cultures within academic medicine have contributed to the normalization of bullying. Committed leadership, focused on implementing comprehensive bullying prevention policies, is needed to promote an inclusive culture in which everyone feels that they belong.

The Path Forward: Using Metrics to Promote Equitable Work Environments

Women continue to be underrepresented in medicine, especially in senior leadership positions, and they experience challenges related to gender bias and sexual harassment. Women who are members of multiple groups that experience marginalization, including, for example, women who are American Indian, Alaskan native, indigenous, Black, or Hispanic, face a compounded challenge. In this article, we explore how institutions and professional organizations in medicine can use metrics to better understand the structural disparities that create and promote gender inequity in the work environment and how to employ these metrics to track progress in narrowing these gaps. Examples in health care (clinical medicine, scientific organizations, scientific publishing), business, and law are used to illustrate how impactful metrics can promote accountability when coupled with transparent reporting.