Clinical Faculty Processes

 

The FoMD adopted a universal Clinical Faculty Promotion Process in 2022. The revised process, approved by the Dean’s Executive Committee (DEC) on June 6, 2022, is summarized in the document found here.  Highlights include:

  1. Clinical Faculty Academic Contribution Reports are now harmonized across departments.
  2. Promotions are based on 4 pillars of academic contribution: education, clinical leadership, research, and administration.
  3. Clinical Chairs or delegates are expected to review Clinical Faculty performance. This may be done in-person or over video, but there should be opportunity for feedback and to identify opportunities to develop an academic portfolio. Clinical Lecturers are initially probationary for a period of 3 years. Those who wish to remain Clinical Lecturers may do so if there is a minimum amount of academic contribution to the Department and Faculty as defined by the Chair.
  4. Specific procedures are in place for suspension and termination of appointments, as well as grounds for non-renewal.
  5. A formal process for appealing suspension or termination of clinical appointments is in place.
  6. Guidelines for removal of Clinical Faculty from learners without suspension of appointment is in place.
  7. Minimum time frames in a certain rank before applying for promotion have been revised to reflect quality and duration of academic contributions.
  8. A formal process for appealing decisions for denial of promotion is in place.

Clinical Teaching Performance

Feedback from Clinical Faculty identified a gap in the process for reviewing teaching performance. Teaching evaluations are typically distributed at the end of an academic year, often many months after the completion of clinical teaching encounters. In some instances, comments on the evaluations were seen as hurtful and demoralizing. To address these gaps, a process for addressing clinical teaching performance was developed and approved by the DEC on June 6, 2022, which can be referenced here. The summary of this process is based on four levels of intervention:

  1. Routine feedback
  2. Occasional suboptimal evaluations
  3. Repeated underperformance
  4. Potential egregious teaching concern

In essence, it provides an opportunity for the Clinical Faculty member to discuss their evaluations with a program lead, or Associate Dean UGME/PGME, to allow their perspective to be shared and acknowledged, and where appropriate, a venue to encourage a safe space for open discussion and growth.