Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 18, Issue 9, pp 711–716

Promotion criteria for clinician-educators

  • Ayse A. Atasoylu
  • Scott M. Wright
  • Brent W. Beasley
  • Joseph CofrancescoJr.
  • David S. Macpherson
  • Ty Partridge
  • Patricia A. Thomas
  • Eric B. Bass
Original Articles

DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.10425.x

Cite this article as:
Atasoylu, A.A., Wright, S.M., Beasley, B.W. et al. J GEN INTERN MED (2003) 18: 711. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.10425.x

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Department of medicine chairs have a critical role in the promotion of clinician-educators. Our primary objective was to determine how chairs viewed: 1) the importance of specific areas of clinician-educator performance in promotion decisions; and 2) the importance and quality of information on available measures of performance. A secondary objective was to compare the views of department chairs with those of promotion and tenure committee chairs.

METHODS: In October 1997, a questionnaire was mailed to all department chairs in the United States and Canada asking them to rate the importance of 11 areas of clinician-educators’ performance in evaluating them for promotion. We also asked them to rate 36 measures of performance. We compared their responses to a similar 1996 survey administered to promotion committee chairs.

RESULTS: One hundred fourteen of 139 department chairs (82%) responded to the survey. When considering a clinician-educator for promotion, department chairs view teaching skills and clinical skills as the most important areas of performance, as did the promotion committee chairs. Of the measures used to evaluate teaching performance, teaching awards were considered most important and rated as a high-quality measure. When evaluating a clinician-educator’s clinical skills, peer and trainee evaluation were considered as the most important measures of performance, but these were rated low in quality. Patient satisfaction and objective outcome measures also were viewed as important measures that needed improvement. Promotion committee chairs placed more emphasis on productivity in publications and external grant support when compared to department chairs.

CONCLUSION: It is reassuring that both department chairs and promotion committee chairs value teaching skills and clinical skills as the most important areas of a clinician-educator’s performance when evaluating for promotion. However, differences in opinion regarding the importance of several performance measures and the need for improved quality measures may represent barriers to the timely promotion of clinician-educators.

Key words

promotion criteria clinician-educators academic advancement 

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ayse A. Atasoylu
    • 1
  • Scott M. Wright
    • 2
    • 3
  • Brent W. Beasley
    • 4
  • Joseph CofrancescoJr.
    • 2
  • David S. Macpherson
    • 5
  • Ty Partridge
    • 6
  • Patricia A. Thomas
    • 2
  • Eric B. Bass
    • 2
  1. 1.the Division of General Internal MedicineCambridge Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolCambridge
  2. 2.Division of General Internal MedicineJohns Hopkins University School of MedicineUSA
  3. 3.Bayview Medical CenterBaltimore
  4. 4.Division of General Internal MedicineKansas University School of MedicineKansas City
  5. 5.Division of General Internal MedicineUniversity of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, and the Veterans Administration Pittsburgh Healthcare SystemPittsburgh
  6. 6.Health Research and Policy CentersUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicago

Personalised recommendations