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

被引:171
作者
Beasley, BW
Wright, SM
Cofrancesco, J
Babbott, SF
Thomas, PA
Bass, EB
机构
[1] JOHNS HOPKINS UNIV,SCH MED,DIV GEN INTERNAL MED,BALTIMORE,MD
[2] JOHNS HOPKINS BAYVIEW MED CTR,BALTIMORE,MD
[3] BAYSTATE MED CTR,BOSTON,MA
[4] TUFTS UNIV,SCH MED,BOSTON,MA 02111
来源
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION | 1997年 / 278卷 / 09期
关键词
D O I
10.1001/jama.278.9.723
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Context.-Clinician-educators have concerns about their ability to be promoted and the criteria used by medical school promotion committees. Objective.-To discover the criteria and methods that medical school promotion committees use to make decisions about the promotion of clinician-educators. Methods.-In June 1996 we mailed a questionnaire to chairpersons of all medical school promotion committees in the United States and Canada. Results.-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 clinician-educators' 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 clinician-educator tracks differed little in survey responses from schools without such tracks. Conclusion-Most, 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.
引用
收藏
页码:723 / 728
页数:6
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]   MEETING THE FACULTY-DEVELOPMENT NEEDS OF GENERALIST PHYSICIANS IN ACADEMIA [J].
BALDWIN, CD ;
LEVINE, HG ;
MCCORMICK, DP .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 1995, 70 (01) :S97-S103
[2]   THE ACADEMIC HEALTH-CENTER AND THE PUBLIC AGENDA - WHOSE 3-LEGGED STOOL [J].
BARONDESS, JA .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1991, 115 (12) :962-967
[3]   ACADEMIC PROMOTION AT A MEDICAL-SCHOOL - EXPERIENCE AT JOHNS-HOPKINS-UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE [J].
BATSHAW, ML ;
PLOTNICK, LP ;
PETTY, BG ;
WOOLF, PK ;
MELLITS, ED .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1988, 318 (12) :741-747
[4]   THE CHANGING FACES OF PROMOTION AND TENURE AT UNITED-STATES MEDICAL-SCHOOLS [J].
BICKEL, J .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 1991, 66 (05) :249-256
[5]  
Boyer E. L., 1990, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate
[6]  
BRANCH WT, 1997, SGIM FORUM, V20, P5
[7]  
BRANCH WT, 1997, SGIM FORUM, V20, P10
[8]   MEDICAL EDUCATORS VIEWS ON MEDICAL-EDUCATION REFORM [J].
CANTOR, JC ;
COHEN, AB ;
BARKER, DC ;
SHUSTER, AL ;
REYNOLDS, RC .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1991, 265 (08) :1002-1006
[9]   EVALUATING FACULTY CLINICAL EXCELLENCE IN THE ACADEMIC HEALTH-SCIENCES CENTER [J].
CAREY, RM ;
WHEBY, MS ;
REYNOLDS, RE .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 1993, 68 (11) :813-817
[10]  
FRIEDMAN RH, 1982, ANN INTERN MED, V96, P2333