Laura Goldman MD Suki Tepperberg MD, MPH STFM April 2008 Faculty Peer Review Laura Goldman MD Suki Tepperberg MD, MPH STFM April 2008

Outline Faculty review in the medical literature Goals of Peer Review How we developed our faculty peer review at Boston University DFM Process & technology involved A walk through our web-based process Faculty survey Lessons learned

Medical Literature Bland CJ, Wersal L, VanLoy W, Jacott W. Evaluating faculty performance in medical education. Academic Medicine.2002;77(1):15-30. Howell LP, Poon B, Nesbitt TS, Anders TF. A Web-Based Data Repository and Review System for Faculty Evaluation and Promotion. Academic Medicine.2007; 82 (7):704-712.

Key Elements of Minnesota Plan Peer review Faculty assemble portfolio Goal setting and report of contributions 7 Key areas of faculty effort Point system Tied to merit raises and allocation of other desirable resources

MyInfoVault Description published in July 2007 UC-Davis SOM tool that documents and can generate: CV Faculty Promotion dossier NIH Biosketch Purely documentation- no goal setting or formative review

Goals of the Faculty Peer Review Begin annual review of faculty performance Develop organizational structure Encourage self-reflection among faculty concerning aspirations

Goals for Faculty Peer Review Maximize success through goal setting Create balance between clinical and academic priorities Identify support needed for faculty to meet career goals

What the Faculty Review is NOT Not directly related to promotion Not directly related to salary increases which are based on clinical productivity

Steps to Development Presented to faculty 2002 Began on paper 2002-3 Web-based 2005-6 Interactive 2006-7 (supervisor and FRC comments added) 2007-8 Last years goal populate automatically for mandatory review

Process: Step 1 Faculty Review Committee formed Elected from each area 2 clinical faculty 2 research faculty 1 educator/clinician 1 manager/clinician Elected from each area Selected/volunteers Two year minimum term

Performance Portfolio: Step 2 Web-based tool Review of last years goals Report of contributions and next year’s goals Updated CV Teaching preference form Supporting documents (paper file) Evaluations (Peer, Resident, Student) Examples of scholarly activity (presentations, articles, letters)

Supervisor input: Step 3 Faculty meet with supervisor Reviews goals Opportunity to align personal goals with department goals Adds evaluative comments into web-based tool Submits completed form for committee review

Faculty Review Committee: Step 4 Each committee member pre-reviews approximately 8 faculty portfolios Committee meets for 6 consecutive weeks for 3 hours Each faculty presented to full committee for approximately 30 minutes Comments from committee recorded on web-based form Completed form sent back to faculty and copied for personnel file

Technology: php Widely used general purpose scripting language especially suited for Web development Can be embedded into HTML

A Walk Through the Web-based Form

Faculty Survey 2007 19 respondents Response rate 59% 16 questions 2 open questions Survey Monkey

Faculty Survey Faculty review will help me achieve my professional goals for the coming year

Faculty Survey Feedback from the FRC last year helped me achieve my professional goals N=15

Faculty Survey Based on FRC feedback, I made specific changes in my professional activities to complete my goals

Faculty Survey As a result of the Faculty Review, I have gained recognition of my contributions to the department

Faculty Survey Meeting with my supervisor was a helpful part of the faculty review

Faculty Survey The web based form was user friendly and easy to navigate

Faculty Survey I prefer the web based over the paper based process

Faculty Survey The web based form was ….

Faculty Survey Peer evaluation is useful for my professional development

Faculty Survey Data on the quality of my clinical performance should be included in the faculty review

Faculty Survey Data on my clinical productivity should be included in the faculty review

What Did You Like Most About Faculty Review Process? Opportunity for self reflection Goal setting Being pushed to thinking about the future Web based tool Constructive feedback on how to achieve my goals from supervisor and committee

What Suggestions Do You Have For Next Year? Streamline form/redundant Feedback from Chairman Lots of effort, not much gain Add clinical data

Lessons Learned: Faculty Value Peer review Support from supervisor and committee Goal setting Clinical data Recognition from Chairman

Chairman Values More time for other areas of faculty support Increase in academic output by faculty Alignment of individual and department goals Meets University requirement for yearly review

Future Directions Streamline form Work out technical glitches Add clinical data Formalize process Leadership Terms

Future Directions Better definitions of each area of activity on the web SMART goals on web page More administrative support

Thank-you!