1. Department of Medicine Three Year Review Workshop November 11, 2013 Frank L. Silver Joan Wither Co-Chairs, Three Year Review Joan Wither Co-Chair, Three Year Review

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

3. Three Year Review You have passed your Three Year Review, Farley, so you can stop looking brilliant and incisive now

4. Three Year Review 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 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 14, 2014 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 by March 14, 2014: Personal Cover Letter Curriculum Vitae Teaching and Education Report (by academic level, not year) Teaching Data Summary Refereed Publication Summary Where applicable: Creative Professional Activity Report Research Awards Data Summary Research Supervision Data Summary For Clinician Teachers, Clinician Educators, Clinical Investigators, Clinician in Quality and Innovation Teaching Dossier (2 Copies) Also, ASAP send a copy of your CV to DDD and PIC (for letters of support) all generated by WebCV

7. Three Year Review

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

9. 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

10. 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.

12. Three Year Review Creative Professional Activity

13. Three Year Review Process – Who Does the Evaluation? 19 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

14. Three Year Review Committee Members Frank Silver: CI – Neurology UHN (co-chair) Joan Wither: CS – Rheumatology UHN (co-chair) Ivy Fettes : CE – Endocrinology SBHRichard Wennberg: CI - Neurology Shiphra Ginsburg: CE – Respirology MSHCraig Earle: CS – Oncology SBH Hillar Vellend: CE – Infectious Disease MSHHarry Janssen: CS – Gastroenterology UHN Bill Geerts: CI – Respirology SBHYoung-In Kim: CS – Gastroenterology SMH Kamel Kamel: CI – Nephrology SMHPaula Rochon: CS – Geriatric Med WCH Irv Salit: CI – Infectious Diseases UHNAntonio Strafella: CS - Neurology Hillary Steinhart: CI – Gastroenterology MSH Liz Tullis: CI – Respirology SMHAnil Chopra: CT – Emergency Med UHN Ellen Warner: CI – Oncology SBH Sam Radharkrishnan: CT – Cardiology SBH

15. Three Year Review Below Expectations Meets Expectations Exceeds ExpectationsN/A Teaching (Quantity) Undergraduate Postgraduate CME Other Teaching Assessments Students Peers Research Peer Review Grants Non-Peer Review Grants Other Research Productivity Abstracts Presentations Papers (Peer-Reviewed) Papers (Non-Peer Reviewed) Other

16. Three Year Review Below ExpectationsMeets Expectations Exceeds ExpectationsN/A Administrative Teaching Research Honours/Awards Teaching Research Clinical Effectiveness Role model Creative Professional Activity

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

18. Three Year Review Outcomes by Job Description 2010 -2013 17% of reviews resulted in probation CI: 22% CT: 14% CS: 24% CE: 0% Data compiled by Claire Mitchell

19. Three Year Review

20. Process - Conclusion The Chair of Medicine reviews the Committees 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

21. Three Year Review 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 14, 2014 (failing to do so 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

22. Three Year Review When you are all finished... start working on the documents for your promotion to Associate Professor !