- Browse by Author
Browsing by Author "Class, Jon"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Fostering Leadership in a Student-Run Free Clinic Medical Executive Board and Across Interdisciplinary Partners.(2022-03-30) Haddad, Aida; Khan, Maria; Gensel, Annie; Barber, Mckenzie; Aksu, Eric; Klipsch, Eric; Class, Jon; Brown, Lucy; Kabir, Jason; Etling, Mary AnnBackground: Being a member of a healthcare executive board requires a unique sense of resolve and passion for service. Not only are these leaders operating a student-run free clinic, but they are also full-time professional students while balancing extracurricular activities to discern their healthcare vocation. Board members feel pulled in many directions, resulting in imposter syndrome and possibly untapped leadership potential. Leadership succumbing to this pressure in 2021 might have resulted in the permanent closure or dysfunction of a clinic after COVID-19 required closure for one year. This study will discuss the interventions employed by the clinic’s Chair, Vice-Chair, Women’s Health co-chairs, and Operations chair to overcome the burden felt when faced with reopening a large, interdisciplinary, free clinic serving approximately 34 patients per weekly clinic day. Though fostering interpersonal relationships best encompasses the theme with which the above leaders encouraged hope during a time of global suffering, relationships were encouraged through multiple discrete interventions forming camaraderie and trust within and between interdisciplinary executive boards. Interventions: Medical Executive Board: In anticipation of the added pressures of reopening the clinic amid COVID-19, the Chair took special care to create a culture of collegiality and mutual vulnerability by facilitating various ways to ‘check-in’ with her board. She hosted preterm and midterm check-ins with each leader to discuss their vision for their role on the board. The Chair and Chair-elect also hosted the clinic’s first annual leadership retreat to support each member in finding their leadership style, and in turn, becoming familiar with their colleagues’ leadership styles. The Chair and Chair-elect will also perform exit interviews with all graduating board members. Partners: Reopening during the pandemic meant reorganizing the entire clinic flow and limiting the number of volunteers present. As a result, many interdisciplinary partners could not participate in the initial reopening and had to be brought in slowly throughout the year. Partner participation was encouraged by monthly meetings with all partners (regardless of clinical presence), and an active group chat with leaders. The Vice-Chair also emphasized alternate means of participation. Some partners organized winter clothes and food drives, while others fundraised for the clinic. All partners were encouraged to develop telehealth plans. The fall partners’ retreat fostered community, during which all partners brainstormed 2022 goals. Results/Conclusion: Medical Executive Board: As a result of the above interventions, clinic leadership not only reopened the free clinic but fulfilled many years-long goals, which include rolling out a weekday telehealth protocol, serving record numbers of patients during a time of immense need, publishing the inaugural clinic-wide monthly newsletter, and formulating the clinic’s first-ever mistreatment policy. The leadership retreat inspired our Women’s Health Coalition to host a retreat; a check-in with the Women’s Health chair led to a midterm co-chair election to sustain the coalition long-term. Finally, the Operations chair spearheaded changes to clinic flow to avoid COVID-19 outbreaks–in doing so, she inspired a record turnout for this position at the 2022 elections. Partners: By the end of 2021, all interdisciplinary partners had resumed in-person care. However, the regular monthly meetings, alternate projects, and retreats fostered community and interest in the clinics even when all could not physically participate.Item Pipelines to Leadership: Strategies for Executive Board Recruitment at a Student-Run Free Clinic(2022-03-30) Kabir, Jason; Salgado, Christina; Class, Jon; Brown, LucyIntroduction/Problem: The Covid-19 pandemic placed restrictions on student-run free clinics (SRFCs) across the nation. Guidelines set forth by our medical school’s administration restricted in-person participation at our SRFC from April 2020 to March 2021 for clinical students and April 2020 to September 2021 for pre-clinical students. With medical executive board elections occurring annually in October, it was uncertain whether eligible pre-clinical students would feel confident enough in their experience to run for and fulfill the responsibilities of a board position. In this paper, we will present leadership opportunities and strategies to recruit candidates for an executive board at an SRFC. Methods/Interventions: Additional volunteer positions, including a new Assistant Clinic Manager position, were added for pre-clinical students prior to the election. Members of the clinic’s established teams, such as the Continuity of Care Team, were encouraged to run in the election. An additional board position was transitioned to a two-year position. The current board members participated in a question and answer session about their positions and informally mentored interested candidates outside of this session. Candidates’ written platforms and volunteer sign-up records were analyzed to determine the impact of these interventions. Results: Twenty-seven candidates ran for 14 board positions up for election. Fifty-six percent of the candidates were pre-clinical students, of which 47% had the opportunity to serve in the Assistant Clinic Manager position. Eighty-five percent of candidates were members of one of the clinic’s teams, and 100% of the candidates elected had previously served on a team or as a board member, which are higher percentages than in previous years. Conclusion: Despite pre-clinical students eligible to run for a board position given the opportunity of only 7 clinic days over 2 months (with a limit of one general volunteer shift per month) to serve in-person, the election attracted a similar number of candidates as previous years. In addition, candidates’ motivation to improve upon things they had been involved with at the clinic, often beyond their responsibilities on clinic day, played a large role in the 2021 election. While a variety of methods can be used to motivate volunteers to pursue executive board positions, our work shows SRFCs can offer leadership positions outside of the executive board, possibly through clinic teams, to serve as a pipeline for volunteers to pursue increasing clinic ownership and responsibilities.