Transcript Three Year Review

Department of Medicine
Junior Faculty Review
Workshop
November 10, 2014
Frank L. Silver
Joan Wither
Co-Chairs, Three Year Review
Joan Wither
Co-Chair, Three Year Review
Junior Faculty Review
Workshop Agenda
9:00
Overview of the Three-Year Review
Process
Frank Silver
9:15
Academic Job Descriptions and
Requirements
Joan Wither
9:30
Teaching Dossier
Shiphra Ginsburg
10:00
WebCV
Mark Bold
10:30
Questions
All
Junior Faculty Review
Junior Faculty Review
“You have passed your Junior Review, Farley, so
you can stop looking brilliant and incisive now”
Junior Faculty Review
Purpose
To formally evaluate the progress of the faculty early
in their careers to:
• provide feedback on their progress
• ensure faculty are on track for successful
promotion and advancement
• ensure that faculty have the right job
description
Junior Faculty Review
Process – When?
• 2.5 years after the initial appointment faculty receive a letter
from the Chair of the Department of Medicine, to prepare a
report of their academic activities since the beginning of
their appointment to the Department.
• Deadline for report this year is Monday, March 16, 2015
• Extensions can be granted on individual basis by the Chair
of the Department of Medicine
(e.g. maternity/paternity leave, health problems)
Junior Faculty Review
Process – What?
You need to submit by March 16, 2015:
• Personal Cover Letter
• Curriculum Vitae
• Teaching and Education Report
(by academic level, not year)
• Teaching Data Summary
• Refereed Publication Summary
Where applicable:
Also, ASAP send a
copy of your CV to
DDD and PIC
(for letters of support)
all generated by WebCV
• Creative Professional Activity Report
• Research Awards Data Summary
• Research Supervision Data Summary
For Clinician Teachers, Clinician Educators, Clinical Investigators, Clinician in
Quality and Innovation
• Teaching Dossier (2 Copies)
Junior
Faculty
Review
Check
List
http://www.deptmedicine.utoronto.ca/Faculty/Three-Year_Review.htm
Junior Faculty Review
Junior Faculty Review
Cover Letter
• Synopsis of your academic career – where you have
been, where you are going and any significant
interruptions
– high level overview of your academic accomplishments
related to teaching, research and creative professional
activity since your appointment to the DOM
– emphasize your research / educational focus and any
changes that have occurred or any that are planned
– impact and relevance of your work
– a 5 year plan including future goals
– include a summary of your clinical work load annually
Junior Faculty Review
Role on Publications and Research Grants:
•
Senior Responsible Author (SRA) – initiates the direction of investigation,
establishes the laboratory or setting in which the project is conducted, obtains the
funding for the study, plays a major role in the data analysis and preparation of the
manuscript, and assumes overall responsibility for publication of the manuscript in
its final form.
•
Principal Author (PI) – carries out the actual research and undertakes the data
analysis and preparation of the manuscript. (The Principal Author may also be the
Senior Responsible Author.)
•
Co-Principal Author (CO-PI) – has a role in experimental design, and an active
role in carrying out the research, is involved in data analysis and preparation of the
manuscript. The project would be compromised seriously without the co-principal
author.
•
Co-Investigator (CO-I) – Contributes to the research activities and participates in
the publications.
•
Collaborator (COLL) – contributes experimental material or assays to the study,
but does not have a major conceptual role in the study or the publication.
Junior Faculty Review
Creative Professional Activity
Junior Faculty Review
Process – Who Does the Evaluation?
• 19 members with different job descriptions (CT, CE, CI, CS,
RS) from different hospitals and a variety of subspecialties
• A primary and secondary reviewer are assigned to each
faculty dossier to review and summarize the material for the
whole committee
• The committee has a full discussion about each candidate
and a consensus opinion is reached
Junior Faculty Review
Committee Members
Frank Silver: CI – Neurology UHN (co-chair)
Joan Wither: CS – Rheumatology UHN (co-chair)
Ivy Fettes : CE – Endocrinology SBH
Richard Wennberg: CI - Neurology
Shiphra Ginsburg: CE – Respirology MSH
Craig Earle: CS – Oncology SBH
Hillar Vellend: CE – Infectious Disease MSH
Harry Janssen: CS – Gastroenterology UHN
Bill Geerts: CI – Respirology SBH
Young-In Kim: CS – Gastroenterology SMH
Kamel Kamel: CI – Nephrology SMH
Paula Rochon: CS – Geriatric Med WCH
Irv Salit: CI – Infectious Diseases UHN
Antonio Strafella: CS – Neurology UHN
Hillary Steinhart: CI – Gastroenterology MSH
Liz Tullis: CI – Respirology SMH
Anil Chopra: CT – Emergency Med UHN
Ellen Warner: CI – Oncology SBH
Sam Radharkrishnan: CT – Cardiology SBH
Junior Faculty Review
Below
Expectations
Teaching (Quantity)
Undergraduate
Postgraduate
CME
Other
Teaching Assessments
Students
Peers
Research
Peer Review Grants
Non-Peer Review Grants
Other
Research Productivity
Abstracts
Presentations
Papers (Peer-Reviewed)
Papers (Non-Peer Reviewed)
Other
Meets
Expectations
Exceeds
Expectations
N/A
Junior Faculty Review
Below
Expectations
Administrative
Teaching
Research
Honours/Awards
Teaching
Research
Clinical Effectiveness
Role model
Creative Professional Activity
Meets Expectations
Exceeds
Expectations
N/A
Junior Faculty Review
Process - Conclusion
 The Co-Chairs of the committee draft a letter for the
Chair Department of Medicine conveying the
committee’s deliberations and conclusions
 Meets/surpasses requirements + feedback
 Does not meet requirements, extend probation + feedback
(e.g. more protected time, more mentorship, change in job
description)
 Does not meet requirements, recommend that
appointment not be renewed
Junior Faculty Review
Process - Conclusion
• The Chair of Medicine reviews the Committee’s
conclusions + the available documentation and makes
a final decision about each candidate
• The Chair of Medicine shares this information with the
PIC and DDD, who then convey the information to the
candidate
Junior Faculty Review
Outcomes by Job Description
2010 -2013
17% of reviews resulted in probation
120
100
18
CI: 22%
CT: 14%
CS: 24%
CE: 0%
80
60
7
87
40
44
20
6
4
19
14
1
1
0
Total
CQI
CI
Data compiled by Claire Mitchell
CT
CS
0
8
CE
1
Not
listed
PROBATION
PASSED
Junior Faculty Review
Summary
• The Junior Faculty Review is meant to help give you
guidance and make sure that you are on the right track
• Please get your documents in by March 16, 2015
• Send your CV ASAP to your PIC and DDD so that they
can provide a constructive feedback
Junior Faculty Review
When you are all finished . . .
• start working on the documents for
your promotion to Associate
Professor !