Department of Medicine Three Year Review Workshop January 20, 2011 Joan Wither & Frank L. Silver...
-
Upload
noelia-sanders -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of Department of Medicine Three Year Review Workshop January 20, 2011 Joan Wither & Frank L. Silver...
Department of Medicine
Three Year Review
Workshop
Department of Medicine
Three Year Review
Workshop
January 20, 2011
Joan Wither & Frank L. SilverCo-Chairs, Three Year Review
Joan WitherCo-Chair, Three Year Review
Three Year ReviewThree Year Review
Workshop Agenda 8:00 Welcome
8:10 Overview of the Three-Year Review Process
Frank Silver
8:30 Academic Job Descriptions and Requirements
Joan Wither
8:45 WebCV Ben Smith Lea
9:15 Teaching Dossier Shiphra Ginsburg
9:30 Questions All
Three Year ReviewThree 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 ReviewThree Year ReviewProcess – 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 18, 2011
• Extensions can be granted on individual basis by the Chair of the Department of Medicine (e.g. maternity/paternity leave, health problems)
Three Year ReviewThree Year ReviewProcess – What?
You need to submit your:
• Personal Cover Letter• CV* • teaching dossier (x2)
CVScholar’s statementTeaching and Education
Report*
• a copy of CV to DDD and PIC ASAP (for letters of support)
Deadline: March 18th
* generated by WebCV
Three Year ReviewThree Year Review
Three Year ReviewThree Year Review
http://www.deptmedicine.utoronto.ca/Faculty/Three-Year_Review.htm
Three Year ReviewThree 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
– a 5 year plan including future goals– include a summary of your clinical work load annually
Three Year ReviewThree Year Review
Creative Professional Activity
Three Year ReviewThree 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 ReviewThree Year ReviewCommittee Members
Frank Silver: CI – Neurology UHN
Joan Wither: CS – Rheumatology UHN
Dianne Broussard: RS – Neurology UHN Young-Ing Kim: CS – Gastroenterology SMH
Ivy Fettes : CE – Endocrinology SBH Sam Radharkrishnan: CT – Cardiology SBH
Shiphra Ginsburg - CE – GIM MSH Paula Rochon: RS – Geriatric Med WCH
Anil Chopra: CT – Emergency Med UHN Irv Salit: CI – Infectious Diseases UHN
Bill Geerts: CI – Respirology SBH Lilian Siu: CI – Oncology UHN
John Granton: CI – Critical Care UHN Liz Tullis: CI – Respirology SMH
Kamel Kamel: CI – Nephrology SMH Hillar Vellend: CE – Infectious Diseases MSH
Three Year ReviewThree 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 ReviewThree 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 ReviewThree Year Review
Three Year ReviewThree 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 18, 2011(this 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 ReviewThree Year ReviewNext step
• start working on the documents
for your promotion to Associate
Professor !
Three Year ReviewThree Year ReviewJob Descriptions
• Job description should be defined when started in the Department of Medicine
• Define the criteria by which your success will be judged
• Review at 3 years permits determination of whether your job description is appropriate for the work that you do
• Allows review of supports in place to permit remediation if necessary
• Full job descriptions are located at http://www.deptmedicine.utoronto.ca/Faculty/appointments/domjob.htm
Three Year ReviewThree Year ReviewClinician Scientist – Description
and Expectations
• Major activity is research
• 70-80% research, 10-15% teaching, 10-15% clinical, 5-10% administration
• Expected productivity
• principal investigator on an established research program
• Holds as PI at least one peer-reviewed grant
• ≥ 2 peer-reviewed manuscripts per year as 1st or senior author
Three Year ReviewThree Year ReviewScientist – Description and
Expectations
• Non-MD whose major activity is research
• 80-90% research, 10-15% teaching, 5-10% administration
• Expected productivity
• principal investigator on an established research program
• Holds as PI at least one peer-reviewed grant
• ≥ 2-3 peer-reviewed manuscripts per year as 1st or senior author
Three Year ReviewThree Year ReviewClinician Scientist/Scientist –
Application Tips• Judged predominantly on your research success, however evidence of effective teaching and administration will also be sought
• Cover letter• should highlight your achievements and future goals in
research – a focused research program is an asset
• Opportunity to outline any impediments to success – such as protected time, research environment, mentorship, financial support
• Funding • Very important that your role in grants defined
• Publications• Outline clearly how you contributed to the publication
(especially important if publishing with previous supervisor)
Three Year ReviewThree Year ReviewClinician Investigator –
Description and Expectations
• Direct clinical research program but time commitment to research less than 70%
• 30-40% clinical, 25-30% teaching, 30-40% research/administration
• Expected productivity
• principal investigator in clinical research
• Holds one peer-reviewed grant or major industry grant
• ≥ 1 peer-reviewed manuscript per year as 1st or senior author
Three Year ReviewThree Year ReviewClinician Investigator –
Application Tips• Judged on the strength of your clinical program and your research success
• Cover letter• should highlight your achievements and future goals in
research – a focused clinical/research program is an asset
• Opportunity any impediments to success
• Funding • Very important that your role in grants defined – especially
important for industry funded grants and research contracts
• Some evidence of intellectual contribution to grant process is required
• Publications• Outline clearly how you contributed to the publication
Three Year ReviewThree Year ReviewClinician Educator – Description
and Expectations
• Major time commitment to teaching, educational administration, and related scholarly activities
• 30-40% clinical, 30-40% teaching, 25-30% research/administration
• Expected benchmarks
• Excellence in teaching
• Participant in educational research or other scholarly activities
• Senior administrative responsibilities
• Chair of major departmental/hospital committee
Three Year ReviewThree Year ReviewClinician Educator – Application
tips• Evaluated on excellence in teaching and evidence of participation in education-based research or other scholarly education-based activities required
• Cover letter• should highlight your achievements in education
and future goals in education-based scholarly activity
• Impact of your scholarly activity on education should be outlined
• Inclusion of ITERS, other teaching evaluations and teaching awards important
Three Year ReviewThree Year ReviewClinician Teacher – Description and
Expectations
• Individuals with major clinical responsibilities who participate in teaching activities
• 50-70% clinical, 15-25% teaching, 15-25% research/administration
• Expected benchmarks
• Excellence in teaching
• Important clinical contribution to Department of Medicine
Three Year ReviewThree Year ReviewClinician Teacher – Application tips
• Evaluated on excellence in teaching and clinical contribution to departments
• Cover letter• should highlight your clinical program and teaching
commitments
• Inclusion of ITERS, other teaching evaluations and teaching awards important
Three Year ReviewThree Year ReviewClinician Administrator –
Description and Expectations
• Individuals with major administrative responsibilities that occupy at least half of their time
• 50% or more administration, balance of teaching, research, clinical
• Expected benchmarks
• Senior administrative responsibilities at the Departmental or Faculty levels