Evaluation of Faculty as Clinical Teachers and Role Models
|Policy:||Evaluation of Faculty as Clinical Teachers and Role Models|
|Policy Nr:||Sec 06 - 03|
|Target Review Date:||2017-12-31|
|Main Stakeholder:||Executive Committee|
This document describes the processes by which the department incorporates regular evaluation of faculty by residents as clinical teachers and role models. The system of resident evaluation and feedback to faculty is intended to provide a reasonably objective and comprehensive basis of comparison between individual faculty both within and across specialty disciplines with respect to their effectiveness as clinical teachers and their performance as clinical role models.
The evaluation provides information on multiple domains of performance in both areas of endeavor both in the form of a relative score and in areas of particular strength or weakness and specific commentary that can be used as part of a formative or constructive critique. The process is cyclic and aggregate reports containing statistically analyzed individual performance results are provided to each faculty member every two years.
This document is included in the individual’s personal file. This information is also made available to the individual’s section head and the appropriate residency training program director(s).
This system of evaluation and feedback serves other purposes:
- Biennial reports are mandated as inclusions in all faculty academic promotions application submissions.
- The evaluations serve as a basis for determining the list of faculty members to be considered for the Barry J. Kaufman and Morley Lertzman teaching awards.
- Resident trainees are required to complete a standard computerized evaluation form for supervising clinical attending faculty. Password-protected security access protects anonymity of the evaluators. Follow-up is provided for trainees who to respond to requests to complete evaluations by the departmental postgraduate education office.
- Evaluations are checked for completeness, and incomplete forms are flagged for follow-up attention.
- At the end of each two-year cycle, complete data for each individual evaluation are aggregated onto a spreadsheet and analyzed with the assistance of a departmental statistician. The results are statistically transformed into a normal distribution to allow appropriate comparisons among individuals in different sections.
- Individual faculty are stratified into three groups. Group one contains those whose overall scores are one standard deviation above the mean. Group two contains those whose cumulative scores fall within plus or minus one standard deviation from the mean. Group three contains those whose aggregate scores fall below minus one standard deviation below the mean.
- Individuals in the first group who also have more than eight completed evaluations during a two-year cycle are included on a list for consideration for teaching awards. Those individuals included in the third group are provided with specific information related to areas requiring performance improvement.
- All faculty members with six or more completed evaluations receive a standardized report with an explanatory covering letter that includes: mean scores in each domain; an overall assessment of the results; their personal ranking within their individual section presented as a histogram which does not divulge the identities of their colleagues; and their overall ranking within the department.
- Follow-up interviews for individuals in the third or sub performing group are arranged with their section heads to discuss a plan for remediation and provide achievable performance targets for the next two-year cycle. Evaluations over the next twelve months are reviewed.
- Individuals in the third group who fail to achieve significant improvement in the next twelve months must comply with a more robust remediation plan or risk losing clinical privileges in teaching services.
- Reports of patterns of unprofessional behavior such as boundary transgressions, bullying or harassment directed towards students, colleagues, other professionals, families or patients will be investigated promptly and if corroborated will be dealt with quickly and effectively so that such behaviour is not repeated. Depending on the severity of the infraction, consequences may range from demanding a public apology, successful completion of anger management courses or, in more serious cases, referral to outside agencies for further investigation. Repeated infractions could lead to dismissal. Residents are strongly encouraged to report such behaviour immediately to their program director or section head as well as to the department head directly.