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

2. 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

3. 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):

4. 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

5. 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

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

7. 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

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

9. Steps to Development Presented to faculty 2002 Began on paper 2002-3
Web-based
Interactive (supervisor and FRC comments added)
Last years goal populate automatically for mandatory review

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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

13. 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

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

15. A Walk Through the Web-based Form

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24. Faculty Survey
The web based form was ….

25. Faculty Survey
Peer evaluation is useful for my professional development

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

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

28. 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

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

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

31. 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

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

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

34. Thank-you!