Department of Medicine

Three Year Review

Workshop

Department of Medicine

Three Year Review

Workshop

November 11, 2013

Frank L. SilverJoan Wither

Co-Chairs, Three Year Review

Joan WitherCo-Chair, Three Year Review

Three Year ReviewThree Year Review

Workshop Agenda 9:00 Overview of the Three-Year Review

ProcessFrank Silver

9:15 Academic Job Descriptions and Requirements

Joan Wither

9:30 Teaching Dossier Shiphra Ginsburg

10:00 WebCV Janina Rosonke

10:30 Questions All

Three Year ReviewThree Year Review

“You have passed your Three Year Review, Farley, so you can stop looking brilliant and incisive now”

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 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 14, 2014

• 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 by March 14, 2014:

• Personal Cover Letter• Curriculum Vitae• Teaching and Education Report

(by academic level, not year)

• Teaching Data Summary• Refereed Publication SummaryWhere applicable:• 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)

Also, ASAP send a copy of your CV to DDD and PIC (for letters of support)

all generated by WebCV

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

– impact and relevance of your work – a 5 year plan including future goals– include a summary of your clinical work load annually

Three Year ReviewThree Year ReviewRole 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 ReviewThree Year Review

Creative Professional Activity

Three Year ReviewThree Year ReviewProcess – 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

Three Year ReviewThree Year Review

Committee MembersFrank 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

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

Three Year ReviewThree Year ReviewBelow

ExpectationsMeets

ExpectationsExceeds

Expectations N/A

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

Three Year ReviewThree Year Review

Below Expectations Meets Expectations

Exceeds Expectations N/A

Administrative

Teaching

Research

Honours/Awards

Teaching

Research

Clinical Effectiveness

Role model

Creative Professional Activity

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 ReviewOutcomes by Job Description

2010 -2013

Total CQI CI CT CS CE Not listed

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

87

1

14

44

198

1

18

1

4

7

6

0

PROBATION

PASSED

17% of reviews resulted in probation

CI: 22%CT: 14%CS: 24%CE: 0%

Data compiled by Claire Mitchell

Three Year ReviewThree Year Review

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

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 14, 2014(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 ReviewThree Year Review

When you are all finished . . .

• start working on the documents

for your promotion to Associate

Professor !