PROMOTION CRITERIA FOR CLINICIAN-EDUCATORS IN THE UNITED-STATES AND CANADA - A SURVEY OF PROMOTION COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSONS

Citation
Bw. Beasley et al., PROMOTION CRITERIA FOR CLINICIAN-EDUCATORS IN THE UNITED-STATES AND CANADA - A SURVEY OF PROMOTION COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSONS, JAMA, the journal of the American Medical Association, 278(9), 1997, pp. 723-728
Citations number
25
Categorie Soggetti
Medicine, General & Internal
ISSN journal
00987484
Volume
278
Issue
9
Year of publication
1997
Pages
723 - 728
Database
ISI
SICI code
0098-7484(1997)278:9<723:PCFCIT>2.0.ZU;2-7
Abstract
Context.-Clinician-educators have concerns about their ability to be p romoted and the criteria used by medical school promotion committees. Objective.-To discover the criteria and methods that medical school pr omotion committees use to make decisions about the promotion of clinic ian-educators. Methods.-In June 1996 we mailed a questionnaire to chai rpersons of all medical school promotion committees in the United Stat es and Canada. Results.-Of 142 schools surveyed, 115 (81%) responded; 45% of respondents had a clinician-educator promotion track. On a scal e from 1 (minimally important) to 7 (extremely important), the mean im portance ratings of aspects of clinician-educators' performance were t he 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 a nd frequency of use, The 4 most important methods for evaluating teach ing were awards, peer evaluation, learner evaluation, and teaching por tfolio, 70% or more of schools used these frequently or always. The 4 most important methods of evaluating clinical skills were peer evaluat ion, awards, trainee evaluation, and objective measures, which were us ed frequently or always by 78%, 65%, 58%, and 29% of schools, respecti vely. Clinician-educators were expected to have fewer peer-reviewed pu blications to be promoted than investigators (5.7 vs 10.6, P<.001). Sc hools with separate clinician-educator tracks differed little in surve y responses from schools without such tracks. Conclusion-Most, but not all, promotion committees now assign high importance to the special c ontributions of clinician-educators and use a variety of methods to as sess these, regardless of whether they have a separate clinician-educa tor promotion track.