3 results
135 A Year Later: A multi-institutional QI project to enhance leadership conversations about retention
- Part of
- Nicole Nuckolls, Shirley L.T. Helm, Lindsay Hanes, Diana Lee-Chavarria, R. Ellen Hogentogler, Amanda Brock, Meredith Barr Fitz-Gerald, Jennifer Whitaker, Sabrina Maham, La Tonya Berry Hill, Cyndi Campbell, Stephanie A. Freel, Julius Leary
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 8 / Issue s1 / April 2024
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 03 April 2024, p. 40
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Optimize an Individual Retention Conversation (IRC) toolkit aimed at enhancing trust amongst CRPs and leadership via a 2-phase project wherein 9 academic medical centers (AMCs) with significant CRP workforces developed and assessed a 16 question IRC guide and accompanying manager/leader instructional guide. #_msoanchor_1 METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Significant interest in adapting the Stay Interview concept for the CRP workforce led to a 2-phase pilot to optimize the re-envisioned IRC toolkit. Representatives from nine AMCs and research sites volunteered to navigate their respective institutional IRB processes to initiate the assessment. Additional sites, such as Frontiers Clinical and Translational Institute (Frontiers) launched variations of the IRCs outside of the structured QI project to meet the needs of their institutional environments and reported feedback to the larger group. Feedback on both the standardized IRC, as well as Frontiers’ tailored version, will be presented. This will serve as an entryway into Phase 2, a multi-institutional mixed methods evaluation project open to all AMC members of ACTS and the CRPT SIG. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: To date, 7 institutions have initiated IRCs with test groups at their institutions. Each institution had unique requirements, but all IRBs deemed Phase 1 to be exempt/not human research. Preliminary data suggest not only that the IRC process is valuable to both employee and their manager/unit leadership, but also that the simple act of conducting IRCs was found to be unique and meaningful to employees. For example, in their tailored IRC process, Frontiers found that the 90% of their team found the process to be beneficial (n=9). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: By acknowledging issues, understanding motivations, and increasing engagement, IRCs foster positive change, allowing team leaders to take immediate action on important issues. By doing so, retention and engagement of team members, and the CRP workforce as a whole, is likely to grow and strengthen, as supported by results from our initial test pilots.
114 Stay Interviews: Guiding Meaningful Conversations for Retention of High-Quality CRPs
- Part of
- Stephanie A. Freel, Shirley L.T. Helm, Lindsay Hanes, Diana Lee-Chavarria, R. Ellen Hogentogler, Amanda Brock, Meredith Barr Fitz-Gerald
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 7 / Issue s1 / April 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 24 April 2023, pp. 33-34
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Clinical Research Professional (CRP) shortages and high turnover rates directly impact the conduct of studies. A strategy for improving CRP retention is using Stay Interviews (SI), which are intentional exchanges between CRPs and leadership to enhance transparency and trust. Importantly, SIs are entirely separate from performance evaluations. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Representatives from seven academic medical centers formed a collaborative workgroup (WG) as part of the Association for Clinical and Translational Science (ACTS) Clinical Research Professionals Taskforce (CRPT) Special Interest Group (SIG). The purpose of this workgroup was to develop a Stay Interview (SI) toolkit that will empower leadership to retain high quality staff by engaging employees in open and responsive conversations about motivations to stay in their current roles. Tools previously used by collaborating institutions were evaluated and aligned to establish a sharable guide for SI best practices. Training resources to support leaders in effectively using SI tools were also developed to accompany the toolkit. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Discussions of current tool use among group members highlighted 2 categorical use cases: continuous integration to promote workforce engagement and retention; and targeted use to address acute workforce challenges. The WG identified the need for a standardized conversation guide as well as leadership tools to support effective use of the guide. From the examples collated, the group crafted a 14 question SI guide with additional probing questions that can be tailored to the work environment. Questions fell into 4 key themes: likes/dislikes, motivations, workplace influence on work life, and professional development barriers and opportunities. Anecdotally, SI use in other industries suggests that wide adoption is likely to reduce CRP workforce turnover and improve job satisfaction. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: SIs are designed to build trust and strengthen relationships, fostering positive change by acknowledging issues, understanding motivations, and increasing engagement. Leaders can make immediate actions: clearing obstacles, providing new resources, and increasing recognition. Our next step is implementing a pilot to gather workforce metrics.
Contributors
-
- By Tod C. Aeby, Melanie D. Altizer, Ronan A. Bakker, Meghann E. Batten, Anita K. Blanchard, Brian Bond, Megan A. Brady, Saweda A. Bright, Ellen L. Brock, Amy Brown, Ashley Carroll, Jori S. Carter, Frances Casey, Weldon Chafe, David Chelmow, Jessica M. Ciaburri, Stephen A. Cohen, Adrianne M. Colton, PonJola Coney, Jennifer A. Cross, Julie Zemaitis DeCesare, Layson L. Denney, Megan L. Evans, Nicole S. Fanning, Tanaz R. Ferzandi, Katie P. Friday, Nancy D. Gaba, Rajiv B. Gala, Andrew Galffy, Adrienne L. Gentry, Edward J. Gill, Philippe Girerd, Meredith Gray, Amy Hempel, Audra Jolyn Hill, Chris J. Hong, Kathryn A. Houston, Patricia S. Huguelet, Warner K. Huh, Jordan Hylton, Christine R. Isaacs, Alison F. Jacoby, Isaiah M. Johnson, Nicole W. Karjane, Emily E. Landers, Susan M. Lanni, Eduardo Lara-Torre, Lee A. Learman, Nikola Alexander Letham, Rachel K. Love, Richard Scott Lucidi, Elisabeth McGaw, Kimberly Woods McMorrow, Christopher A. Manipula, Kirk J. Matthews, Michelle Meglin, Megan Metcalf, Sarah H. Milton, Gaby Moawad, Christopher Morosky, Lindsay H. Morrell, Elizabeth L. Munter, Erin L. Murata, Amanda B. Murchison, Nguyet A. Nguyen, Nan G. O’Connell, Tony Ogburn, K. Nathan Parthasarathy, Thomas C. Peng, Ashley Peterson, Sarah Peterson, John G. Pierce, Amber Price, Heidi J. Purcell, Ronald M. Ramus, Nicole Calloway Rankins, Fidelma B. Rigby, Amanda H. Ritter, Barbara L. Robinson, Danielle Roncari, Lisa Rubinsak, Jennifer Salcedo, Mary T. Sale, Peter F. Schnatz, John W. Seeds, Kathryn Shaia, Karen Shelton, Megan M. Shine, Haller J. Smith, Roger P. Smith, Nancy A. Sokkary, Reni A. Soon, Aparna Sridhar, Lilja Stefansson, Laurie S. Swaim, Chemen M. Tate, Hong-Thao Thieu, Meredith S. Thomas, L. Chesney Thompson, Tiffany Tonismae, Angela M. Tran, Breanna Walker, Alan G. Waxman, C. Nathan Webb, Valerie L. Williams, Sarah B. Wilson, Elizabeth M. Yoselevsky, Amy E. Young
- Edited by David Chelmow, Virginia Commonwealth University, Christine R. Isaacs, Virginia Commonwealth University, Ashley Carroll, Virginia Commonwealth University
-
- Book:
- Acute Care and Emergency Gynecology
- Published online:
- 05 November 2014
- Print publication:
- 30 October 2014, pp ix-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation