Promotion criteria for clinician-educators in the United States and Canada. A survey of promotion committee chairpersons

Abstract

C o n t e x t . \ p = m -\ C l i n i c i a n -e d u c a t o r s have concerns about their ability to be promoted and the criteria used by medical school promotion committees.Ob j e c t i v e . \ p = m-\ T o discover the criteria and methods that medical school promotion committees use to make decisions about the promotion of clinician-educators.Met hods. \ p=m-\ I n June 1996 we mailed a questionnaire to chairpersons of all medical school promotion committees in the United States and Canada.Re s u l t s . \ p = m-\ Of 142 schools surveyed, 115 (81%) responded; 45% of respondents had a clinician-educator promotion track. On a scale from 1 (minimally important) to 7 (extremely important), the mean importance ratings of aspects of clinicianeducators' performance were the following: teaching skills (6.3), clinical skills (5.8), mentoring (5.7), academic administration (5.3), developing educational programs (5.3), nonresearch scholarship (5.1), clinical research (4.8), service coordination (4.7), and education research (4.5). Methods to evaluate each aspect of performance were rated by respondents for importance and frequency of use. The 4 most important methods for evaluating teaching were awards, peer evaluation, learner evaluation, and teaching portfolio; 70% or more of schools used these frequently or always. The 4 most important methods of evaluating clinical skills were peer evaluation, awards, trainee evaluation, and objective measures, which were used frequently or always by 78%, 65%, 58%, and 29% of schools, respectively. Clinician-educators were expected to have fewer peer-reviewed publications to be promoted than investigators (5.7 vs 10.6, P<.001). Schools with separate clinicianeducator tracks differed little in survey responses from schools without such tracks.Co n c l u s i o n . \ p =m-\ Mo s t , but not all, promotion committees now assign high importance to the special contributions of clinician-educators and use a variety of methods to assess these, regardless of whether they have a separate clinician-educator promotion track.

Defining Scholarly Activity in Graduate Medical Education

“…This is in stark contrast to the prior survey of promotion committee chairpersons in the United States and Canada performed in 1997 12 and suggests a shift over the past decade toward recognition of the importance of teaching and the necessity for availability of educational resources. This shift is now also present in the Canadian Federation of Post-Secondary Educators white paper on scholarly activity, 13 standards for medical teaching in the United Kingdom, 14 and standards for chiropractic education.…”

A National Faculty Development Needs Assessment in Emergency Medicine

“…8 Early forms of FD were offered at an institutional level and tied closely with promotion and tenure. 2,9,10 More recently, the paradigm of FD has shifted; individual medical faculties are now offering FD curricula, the content and format of which is being informed by the faculty members themselves through focus groups and surveys. 4,5,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] These needs assessments are useful in identifying the specific gaps in knowledge or training that FD can address.…”

The Intersection Between Clinical Excellence and Role Modeling in Medicine

“…7 Although academic medical centers espouse the tripartite mission of patient care, teaching, and research, with limited exception, the emphasis of promotion is generally based on scholarship. 19,20 This is in contrast to the great value society places on high-quality clinical care. 21 Recruitment and retention of clinically excellent physicians will be needed to best meet the needs of patients and learners.…”