1. Three Year Review Gary Naglie

2. Purpose   Mentorship

3. Purpose   To ensure faculty are on track for successful promotion and advancement   To ensure that faculty have the right job description   To provide feedback re progress

4. Process – When?   The review usually takes place in the spring of the 3 rd year of appointment as Assistant Professor   Extensions can be granted on individual basis by Chair Dept Med (e.g. maternity/paternity leave, health problems)

5. Process – What?   You submit a CV, a complete teaching dossier, and an educational teaching summary according to Faculty format   Formatting information available at (www.deptmedicine.utoronto.ca)

10. Process – What?   Your PIC and DDD are responsible for writing letters of support

11. Process – How?   All materials are forwarded to the 3 Year Review Committee   10-12 members with different job descriptions (CT, CE, CI, CS, RS) from different hospitals and a variety of subspecialties   A primary and secondary reviewer are assigned to each faculty dossier to review and summarize the material for the whole committee   The committee has a full discussion about each candidate and a consensus opinion is arrived at

12. Process - Conclusion   The Chair of the committee drafts a letter for the Chair Dept Med conveying the committee’s deliberations and conclusions   Meets/surpasses requirements + feedback   Does not meet requirements, extend probation + feedback (e.g. more protected time, more mentorship, change in job description)   Does not meet requirements, recommend that appointment not be renewed

13. Process - Conclusion   The Dept Chair reviews committee’s conclusions as well as documentation available to committee and makes final decision about each candidate   The Dept Chair shares this information with the PIC and DDD, who then convey the information to the candidate

14. Common Deficiencies   CV is not formatted correctly and/or is incomplete   CV is missing information about faculty’s contribution to activities (e.g. course development, manuscript publications, abstracts, grants, committee work)   CV does not include information about manuscripts and grants that have been submitted or are in preparation

15. Common Deficiencies   Teaching dossier is not formatted correctly and/or is incomplete   Teaching dossier lacks teaching evaluations and TES scores   Teaching dossier does not clearly distinguish formal teaching hours from bedside teaching and grossly inflates teaching hours   Teaching dossier includes superfluous information (e.g. PowerPoint presentations, copies of pages from outlook calendar)

16. Tips   Format your CV according to Faculty format and update it regularly (i.e. don’t wait until you get the letter requesting this for your 3 year review)   Create an educational dossier according to Faculty format and update it regularly (ibid)   Keep a file for all teaching evaluations, TES scores, thank you letters for teaching and presentations, flyers advertising your talks, etc. (lack of documentation can make for a very thin teaching dossier that is difficult to evaluate)

17. Tips   Ask your PIC and/or DDD for help with your CV and/or teaching dossier   Meet annually with your PIC and DDD to get constructive feedback (they want to help you be successful)   Let your PIC and DDD know early on if you are having any difficulties fulfilling your job description   If you need additional help, book a meeting with the Dept. Chair (she wants to help you be successful)

18. Summary   The 3 year review is meant to help give you guidance and make sure that you are on the right track (not to give you a nervous breakdown)   Don’t wait to the last minute to get your documentation in order (this could give you and Jim Hartley a nervous breakdown)   Meet annually with your PIC and DDG for constructive feedback (they want to help you be successful)