1. Department of Medicine Three Year Review Workshop January 26, 2012 Joan Wither & Frank L. Silver Co-Chairs, Three Year Review Joan Wither Co-Chair, Three Year Review

2. Three Year Review Workshop Agenda 9:00Welcome 9:10Overview of the Three-Year Review Process Frank Silver 9:30Academic Job Descriptions and Requirements Joan Wither 9:45WebCVMark Bold 10:15Teaching DossierShiphra Ginsburg 10:30QuestionsAll

3. Three Year Review

4. Purpose To formally evaluate the progress of the faculty early in their careers to: provide feedback on their progress ensure faculty are on track for successful promotion and advancement ensure that faculty have the right job description

5. Three Year Review Process – When? 2.5 years after the initial appointment (December or January of the third academic year of the appointment) faculty receive a letter from the Chair of the Department of Medicine, to prepare a report of their academic activities since the beginning of their appointment to the Department. Deadline for report this year is March 16, 2012 Extensions can be granted on individual basis by the Chair of the Department of Medicine (e.g. maternity/paternity leave, health problems)

6. Three Year Review Process – What? You need to submit your: Personal Cover Letter CV* Teaching Dossier (2 Copies) CV Teaching and Education Report* Documentation (for CTs,CEs) a copy of CV to DDD and PIC ASAP (for letters of support) Deadline: March 16th * generated by WebCV

7. http://www.deptmedicine.utoronto.ca/Faculty/Three-Year_Review.htm

8. Three Year Review Cover Letter Synopsis of your academic career – where you have been, where you are going and any significant interruptions –high level overview of your academic accomplishments related to teaching, research and creative professional activity since your appointment to the DOM –emphasize your research / educational focus and any changes that have occurred or any that are planned –impact and relevance of your work –a 5 year plan including future goals –include a summary of your clinical work load annually

9. Three Year Review Role on Publications and Research Grants: Senior Responsible Author (SRA) – initiates the direction of investigation, establishes the laboratory or setting in which the project is conducted, obtains the funding for the study, plays a major role in the data analysis and preparation of the manuscript, and assumes overall responsibility for publication of the manuscript in its final form.Senior Responsible Author (SRA) – initiates the direction of investigation, establishes the laboratory or setting in which the project is conducted, obtains the funding for the study, plays a major role in the data analysis and preparation of the manuscript, and assumes overall responsibility for publication of the manuscript in its final form. Principal Author (PI) – carries out the actual research and undertakes the data analysis and preparation of the manuscript. (The Principal Author may also be the Senior Responsible Author.)Principal Author (PI) – carries out the actual research and undertakes the data analysis and preparation of the manuscript. (The Principal Author may also be the Senior Responsible Author.) Co-Principal Author (CO-PI) – has a role in experimental design, and an active role in carrying out the research, is involved in data analysis and preparation of the manuscript. The project would be compromised seriously without the co-principal author.Co-Principal Author (CO-PI) – has a role in experimental design, and an active role in carrying out the research, is involved in data analysis and preparation of the manuscript. The project would be compromised seriously without the co-principal author. Co-Investigator (CO-I) – Contributes to the research activities and participates in the publications.Co-Investigator (CO-I) – Contributes to the research activities and participates in the publications. Collaborator (COLL) – contributes experimental material or assays to the study, but does not have a major conceptual role in the study or the publication.Collaborator (COLL) – contributes experimental material or assays to the study, but does not have a major conceptual role in the study or the publication.

11. Three Year Review Creative Professional Activity

12. Three Year Review Process – Who Does the Evaluation? 16 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 reached

13. Three Year Review Committee Members Frank Silver: CI – Neurology UHN Joan Wither: CS – Rheumatology UHN Craig Earle: CS – Oncology SBHYoung-In Kim: CS – Gastroenterology SMH Ivy Fettes : CE – Endocrinology SBHSam Radharkrishnan: CT – Cardiology SBH Shiphra Ginsburg - CE – Respirology MSHPaula Rochon: CS – Geriatric Med WCH Anil Chopra: CT – Emergency Med UHNIrv Salit: CI – Infectious Diseases UHN Bill Geerts: CI – Respirology SBHLilian Siu: CI – Oncology UHN John Granton: CI – Critical Care UHNLiz Tullis: CI – Respirology SMH Kamel Kamel: CI – Nephrology SMHHillar Vellend: CE – Infectious Diseases MSH

14. Three Year Review Process - Conclusion   The Co-Chairs of the committee draft a letter for the Chair Department of Medicine 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

15. Three Year Review Process - Conclusion The Chair of Medicine reviews the Committee’s conclusions + the available documentation and makes a final decision about each candidate The Chair of Medicine shares this information with the PIC and DDD, who then convey the information to the candidate

16. Three Year Review

17. Summary The Three 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) Please get your documents in by March 16, 2011 (this could give you and Jim Hartley a nervous breakdown) Send your CV ASAP to your PIC and DDD so that they can provide a constructive feedback

18. Three Year Review Next step start working on the documents for your promotion to Associate Professor !

19. Three Year Review Job Descriptions Job description should be defined when started in the Department of Medicine Define the criteria by which your success will be judged Review at 3 years permits determination of whether your job description is appropriate for the work that you do Allows review of supports in place to permit remediation if necessary Full job descriptions are located at http://www.deptmedicine.utoronto.ca/Faculty/appointments/domjob.htm http://www.deptmedicine.utoronto.ca/Faculty/appointments/domjob.htm

20. Three Year Review Clinician Scientist – Description and Expectations Major activity is research 70-80% research, 10-15% teaching, 10-15% clinical, 5-10% administration Expected productivity principal investigator on an established research program Holds as PI at least one peer-reviewed grant ≥ 2 peer-reviewed manuscripts per year as 1 st or senior author

21. Three Year Review Scientist – Description and Expectations Non-MD whose major activity is research 80-90% research, 10-15% teaching, 5-10% administration Expected productivity principal investigator on an established research program Holds as PI at least one peer-reviewed grant ≥ 2-3 peer-reviewed manuscripts per year as 1 st or senior author

22. Three Year Review Clinician Scientist/Scientist – Application Tips Judged predominantly on your research success, however evidence of effective teaching and administration will also be sought Cover letter should highlight your achievements and future goals in research – a focused research program is an asset Opportunity to outline any impediments to success – such as protected time, research environment, mentorship, financial support Funding Very important that your role in grants defined Publications Outline clearly how you contributed to the publication (especially important if publishing with previous supervisor)

23. Three Year Review Clinician Investigator – Description and Expectations Direct clinical research program but time commitment to research less than 70% 30-40% clinical, 25-30% teaching, 30-40% research/administration Expected productivity principal investigator in clinical research Holds one peer-reviewed grant or major industry grant ≥ 1 peer-reviewed manuscript per year as 1 st or senior author

24. Three Year Review Clinician Investigator – Application Tips Judged on the strength of your clinical program and your research success Cover letter should highlight your achievements and future goals in research – a focused clinical/research program is an asset Opportunity any impediments to success Funding Very important that your role in grants defined – especially important for industry funded grants and research contracts Some evidence of intellectual contribution to grant process is required Publications Outline clearly how you contributed to the publication

25. Three Year Review Clinician Educator – Description and Expectations Major time commitment to teaching, educational administration, and related scholarly activities 30-40% clinical, 30-40% teaching, 25-30% research/administration Expected benchmarks Excellence in teaching Participant in educational research or other scholarly activities Senior administrative responsibilities Chair of major departmental/hospital committee

26. Three Year Review Clinician Educator – Application tips Evaluated on excellence in teaching and evidence of participation in education-based research or other scholarly education-based activities required Cover letter should highlight your achievements in education and future goals in education-based scholarly activity Impact of your scholarly activity on education should be outlined Inclusion of ITERS, other teaching evaluations and teaching awards important

27. Three Year Review Clinician Teacher – Description and Expectations Individuals with major clinical responsibilities who participate in teaching activities 50-70% clinical, 15-25% teaching, 15-25% research/administration Expected benchmarks Excellence in teaching Important clinical contribution to Department of Medicine

28. Three Year Review Clinician Teacher – Application tips Evaluated on excellence in teaching and clinical contribution to departments Cover letter should highlight your clinical program and teaching commitments Inclusion of ITERS, other teaching evaluations and teaching awards important

29. Three Year Review Clinician Administrator – Description and Expectations Individuals with major administrative responsibilities that occupy at least half of their time 50% or more administration, balance of teaching, research, clinical Expected benchmarks Senior administrative responsibilities at the Departmental or Faculty levels