Transcript Three Year Review - University of Toronto

Department of Medicine
Three Year Review Workshop
November 21, 2012
Frank L. Silver
Co-Chair, Three Year Review
Joan Wither
Co-Chair, Three Year Review
Three Year Review
Three Year Review
Workshop Agenda
1:30
Welcome
1:45
Overview of the Three-Year Review
Process
Frank Silver
2:00
Academic Job Descriptions and
Requirements
Joan Wither
2:15
Teaching Dossier
Shiphra Ginsburg
2:30
WebCV
Mark Bold
3:00
Questions
All
Three Year Review
Three Year Review
Three Year Review
Three Year 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
Three Year Review
Three Year Review
Process – When?
• 2.5 years after the initial appointment (December or
January of the third academic year of the 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 March 15, 2013
• Extensions can be granted on individual basis by the
Chair of the Department of Medicine
(e.g. maternity/paternity leave, health problems)
Three Year Review
Three Year Review
Process – What?
You need to submit by March 15, 2013:
• Personal Cover Letter
• Curriculum Vitae
• Teaching and Education Report
(by academic level, not year)
• Teaching Data Summary
• Refereed Publication Summary
Also, ASAP send a
copy of your CV to
DDD and PIC
(for letters of support)
all generated by WebCV
Where applicable:
• Creative Professional Activity Report
• Research Awards Data Summary
• Research Supervision Data Summary
For Clinician Teachers, Clinician Educators and Clinical Investigators
• Teaching Dossier (2 Copies)
Three Year Review
Three Year Review
http://www.deptmedicine.utoronto.ca/Faculty/Three-Year_Review.htm
Three Year Review
Three Year 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
Three Year Review
Three Year 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.
Three Year Review
Three Year Review
Three Year Review
Three Year Review
Creative Professional Activity
Three Year Review
Three Year Review
Process – Who Does the Evaluation?
• 16 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
Three Year Review
Three Year Review
Committee Members
Frank Silver: CI – Neurology UHN
Joan Wither: CS – Rheumatology UHN
Craig Earle: CS – Oncology SBH
Young-In Kim: CS – Gastroenterology SMH
Ivy Fettes : CE – Endocrinology SBH
Sam Radharkrishnan: CT – Cardiology SBH
Shiphra Ginsburg - CE – Respirology MSH
Paula Rochon: CS – Geriatric Med WCH
Anil Chopra: CT – Emergency Med UHN
Irv Salit: CI – Infectious Diseases UHN
Bill Geerts: CI – Respirology SBH
Liz Tullis: CI – Respirology SMH
Kamel Kamel: CI – Nephrology SMH
Hillar Vellend: CE – Infectious Diseases MSH
Three Year Review
Three Year 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
Three Year Review
Three Year Review
Below
Expectations
Administrative
Teaching
Research
Honours/Awards
Teaching
Research
Clinical Effectiveness
Role model
Creative Professional Activity
Meets Expectations
Exceeds
Expectations
N/A
Three Year Review
Three Year 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
Three Year Review
Three Year 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
Three Year Review
Three Year Review
Summary
• The Three Year Review is meant to help give you
guidance and make sure that you are on the right
track
(not to give you a nervous breakdown)
• Please get your documents in by March 15, 2013
(failing to do so could give you and Jim Hartley a nervous
breakdown)
• Send your CV ASAP to your PIC and DDD so that
they can provide a constructive feedback
Three Year Review
Three Year Review
When you are all finished . . .
• start working on the documents
for your promotion to Associate
Professor !