Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Career Development

To: Karen Antman, M.D., Dean and Provost
From: Mark B. Moss, Ph.D
RE: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Career Development
Date: June 1, 2005

I. BACKGROUND

In the Fall of 2001, the Committee on Faculty Affairs requested that Dean and Provost Chobanian form a committee to make recommendations to enhance career development of faculty at the Boston University Medical School Campus. In response to this request, the Advisory Committee on Faculty Development, chaired by Dr. Barbara Gilchrest, was formed during the Spring semester of 2002. The final report of this committee was made in November 2002. The report identified several key elements of faculty development, including such items as new faculty orientation, a faculty resource book, and faculty development seminars. By far, however, the element with the highest priority was the establishment of periodic review of each faculty member’s performance by his or her section chief or department chair.

This report was included in the documents provided to the LCME site team that visited the medical school in the Spring of 2003. The LCME team identified formal evaluations of faculty as one area that required additional action by the medical school. A response indicating progress toward this goal is to be submitted to LCME by September 1, 2006.

As the first step toward this goal, Dean McCahan formed the Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Career Development. A total of seven Department Chairs, Division Chiefs and Faculty of the School of Medicine were named to the committee.

      Michael Christman, Ph.D.
      Lynne Goldberg, MD
      Kenneth Grundfast, MD
      Simon Levy, Ph.D.
      Joseph Loscalzo, MD
      Raja Sayegh, MD
      Mark Moss, Ph.D (Committee Chair)

The committee was convened and charged by Acting Dean John McCahan on December 17, 2004.

II. CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE:

Dean McCahan charged the committee to develop a set of recommendations focused on the establishment of formal periodic reviews of each faculty member of the Medical School to be conducted by his or her Chair or Chief. This would include identification and assessment of all relevant achievements during the year, a face-to-face meeting, and a written record of the review.

III. PREAMBLE:

Boston University School of Medicine has long recognized the importance and need to support, enhance, and facilitate the development of preclinical and clinical faculty through all stages of their career paths. This includes recognition of achievement in all areas of academic and clinical activities, mentorship of junior faculty, timely promotion, commensurate salary compensation, and fulfillment of other, perhaps less tangible elements that contribute to career satisfaction.

One of the most critical elements of successful career development for junior, mid-stage, and senior faculty alike is a periodic formal discussion and review of professional accomplishments and goals with the Department or Division Chair. It is recognized that several Department Chairs and Division Chiefs currently have a formal mechanism of annual reviews of faculty in their departments or units. However, there are many departments of divisions that either have no mechanism of review, or do in such an informal manner as to render it of little practical value to the faculty member.

Accordingly, and as charged, the Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Career Development deliberated over a period of three months, and formulated the following recommendations toward implementation of faculty annual reviews.

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS:

A. Division Chiefs should collect, a core set of data regarding the faculty member’s achievements over the current academic year. These data would include such activities such as publications, teaching and clinical activities, awards, and service to the department, medical center, university-at-large, community, government, etc. These activities would typically be included in the faculty member’s annual report (compiled in June of each year) that can be electronically accessed by the Department Chair/Division Chief .

B. Using these data, the Department Chair /Division Chief should conduct a review of performance and goals with each member of his/her administrative unit on an annual basis. It is suggested that the review include, but not be limited to the following:

  1. To review a core set of activities recorded in the annual report. These would typically include publications, teaching and, clinical activities, awards, and service to the department, medical center, university-at-large, community, and government.
  2. To reach a mutual understanding and agreement concerning the distribution of the percent of time allocated to each of the activities (listed in B1 above) by the faculty member.
  3. To be of sufficient duration to permit not only an opportunity for discussion of achievements, but also meaningful and frank exchange of inquiries and responses that go beyond the annual report into areas of attainment of goals established from the previous year, setting of future goals for the following year, and overall career satisfaction which includes, but is not limited to:

    1. Feedback from higher levels of administration (Chair, Chief, Director)
    2. Promotion criteria that are clearly stated, unambiguous, fair, and in line with expectations
    3. Opportunities to use skills and abilities in new ways
    4. A work environment that is safe, comfortable and with limited distractions
    5. Salary that is fair, based on individual achievement, and medical school standards
  5. In addition to the annual report, a faculty development form should be provided to the faculty member regarding career goals and areas and accomplishments, concerns or other issues not contained in the annual report. This should include, but are not limited to ten points of information found in Attachment 1:
  6. To provide in writing a summary of the meeting to the faculty member. This should include mutually accepted goals set forth for the next academic year.
  7. That a subsequent meeting between the chair and faculty meeting be provided should there be any disagreement regarding the written conference summary.
  8. That all documents relating to the annual review should be held in strict confidence, and made available only to the faculty member, chair or chief, and officials in the Dean/Provost’s office.

Respectfully submitted,

Mark B. Moss, Ph.D.

Attachment 1: Form for Participating Faculty

Primary teaching affiliate
of BU School of Medicine