Office of Academic Affairs

FACULTY APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION GUIDELINES - CLINICIAN EDUCATOR

Revised: 08/30/02

Provisionally approved by the General Faculty on 08/24/2000 and adopted by the SOM on 08/25/2000.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHAIRS AND CANDIDATES

The revision of the UNM Faculty Handbook approved in December 1998 defines Clinician Educator (CE) faculty as primarily engaged in patient care and teaching with associated scholarly activities. Faculty with terminal professional degrees may be Clinician Educators. In the SOM we consider appropriate terminal degrees for the professorial ranks (Assistant, Associate, and Full Professors) to be the MD, PhD, and equivalent doctoral level degrees. Clinician Educator faculty members may be promoted to Associate Professor and to Professor. Prior to December 1998, the SOM only considered clinical and educational activities in promotion decisions for Clinician Educators. The addition of "scholarly activities" to the definition of Clinician Educator has led to the current revision of these guidelines.

Clinician educator faculty members are primarily engaged in patient care. This patient care may be either direct or indirect, but is clearly related to the advancement of the patient care mission of the SOM. Promotion of CE faculty requires demonstrated excellence in both the qualitative and quantitative patient care parameters stated in the "Tenure and Promotion Standards Guidelines." The standards of excellence in patient care are thus identical for CE and TT faculty.

In addition to clinical care, Clinician educator faculty members are also engaged in educational or both educational and scholarly activities. The quality of the educational experience provided by CE faculty members should meet the standards of "excellence" given in the "Standards Guidelines."

If a CE faculty member has a defined commitment of effort to "scholarly activities" (outlined below), then the time devoted to educational activities may be reduced, but the quality of the educational experiences offered by the faculty member should still be excellent.

The "scholarly activities" of clinician educators may include the kinds of activities described in the "Standards Guidelines" and in the SOM "Tenure and Promotion Guidelines." The standards of excellence and competence described in the "Standards Guidelines" would then apply. "Scholarly activities" for clinician educators may also include activities such as participation in clinical trials and other patient-related research activities that may not lead to peer-reviewed publications, extramural funding, or the development of national or international reputations. To be considered "excellent" in terms of quality, these latter activities should be closely related to the stated missions of the department and of the SOM and HSC, and should contain a significant educational component that includes junior faculty, students, and/or other trainees. They should also have the potential to make significant contributions to the health needs of the people of the State of New Mexico. Examples of such scholarly activities include, but are not limited to, book chapters, case reports, review articles, book reviews, abstracts, participation in symposia, poster and oral presentations, development of patient education materials, development of new educational methods, development of new courses, dissemination of information through Continuing Medical Education (CME) etc., development of new methods of assessment, mentoring of students, residents, and others in scholarly activities, and engaging in activities which promote access to health care and retention of physicians for underserved areas of New Mexico. To be considered excellent in terms of quantity, these activities should make significant contributions to the missions and programs of the department, the SOM, and/or the HSC.

Promotion of clinician educators must be based on qualitative and quantitative excellence in patient care and should also include qualitative excellence in either education or in both education and "scholarly activities." Quantitative requirements may be satisfied by any distribution of effort between "scholarly activities" and educational activities that has been approved by the chair and that is consistent with these guidelines. The actual distribution of effort in educational and scholarly activities will be specified by the chairperson in the letter of offer and at each annual performance evaluation.

Time in Rank

In the School of Medicine the minimum length of service at the rank of assistant professor before being considered for promotion to associate professor is normally five years. That is, the promotion decision is normally made no sooner than in the sixth year of service as an assistant professor. Similarly, the minimum time in rank as associate professor before being considered for promotion to professor is normally five years. Recommendation of a faculty member for promotion earlier than indicated above would require exceptional justification.

It is emphasized that "time in rank" is a consideration; not lest anyone be promoted too quickly, but because promotion is based on evidence of excellence in teaching and service, and on evidence of commitment to this School and community. In the case of recent recruits to this School, "time in rank" elsewhere will be considered.

Chair's Recommendation and Dossier

Primary responsibility for the initiation for academic promotion rests with the department chair. Primary responsibility for assembling the dossier and drafting the letter from the chair (see below) rests with the candidate. The chair can best interpret individual efforts in terms of overall departmental goals and objectives. In a cohesive and well integrated unit, individual members assume responsibilities on the basis of the interests, capabilities, and requirements of the group. Thus, it is incumbent upon the department chair to collect all the relevant data and prepare a letter of recommendation to be addressed to the Dean of the Medical School.

The chair should provide a letter with complete documentation (i.e., the dossier) as to why he/she is recommending promotion. It should be specific in that examples of the candidate's accomplishments should be included in the section dealing with each of the areas under consideration. The letter should be drafted by the candidate. It should explicitly state the arguments for "excellence" according to the definitions in the "UNM SOM Tenure and Promotion Standards Guidelines (12/19/95)". The dossier assembled by the candidate should include only those items referred to in the draft chair's letter. The chair should work with the candidate in assembling the dossier and preparing the letter. The complete dossier will contain, in addition to the items referred to above, the confidential letters of recommendation. The senior faculty of the department must provide written evaluations of the candidate. For promotion to Associate Professor, the “senior faculty” comprises all those at the rank of Associate Professor and Professor. For promotion to Professor the “senior faculty” includes the full Professors. The chair's letter will include explicit references to these letters, in a manner that is consistent with their confidential nature. The committee should know how the recommendation for promotion was reached within the department. In particular, the Chair should indicate if the promotion decision was recommended by a committee of the senior faculty of the department, or in some other way. The criteria used by the department in recommending promotion should also be indicated.

The Dean will refer the promotion case to the appropriate School of Medicine Promotion/Tenure Ad Hoc Committee for their recommendation. However, the final recommendation of the School of Medicine rests with the Dean, while the final decision rests with the Vice President for Health Sciences. The Ad Hoc Committee may request further evaluation or documentation if it feels such is necessary.

Disapproval may be based upon:

  1. Inadequate documentation of a candidate's qualification in the dossier.
  2. An accelerated (see Time In Rank above) promotion that appears unwarranted.
  3. A basic disagreement with the responsible chair concerning the assessment of an individual candidate.

In the event the appropriate Promotion/Tenure Ad Hoc Committee is considering a negative recommendation, the chair of the candidate may be invited to meet with the committee to discuss the situation, provide additional input, etc.

General Information

It will be noted that the information requested below deals with the relatively current teaching and service activities of the nominee. Information from undergraduate, doctoral, postdoctoral, and residency years, and pre-assistant professor years is helpful but unlikely to be determining. Specific School of Medicine Standards will be found in the "UNM School of Medicine Tenure and Promotion Standards Guidelines (12/19/95)".

In order to document a promotion and/or tenure, evidence is desirable in the following areas:

I. Teaching Excellence

Documentation of teaching excellence should include the candidate’s teaching contributions in all classes taught as well as in non-classroom venues and should include activities related to:

For each type of activity please include:

In addition, whenever possible,

Evidence of course material or curriculum developed by the individual.

LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION

Describe candidate's membership on local/national educational committees, including all university committee activities. The committee name, position on the committee, e.g., member, chairperson, etc., dates of service, and an estimate of the monthly time commitment should be included.

CREATIVITY IN EDUCATION

List authored educational materials (handouts, syllabi, etc.). Has the candidate identified problems in education, implemented strategies to solve these problems and studied the outcome of these interventions?

II. Service and/or Administration

Documentation of service should be based on the following:

Service is indended to refer to:

In the above context:

SERVICE - CLINICAL FACULTY

  1. Direct Patient Care
    • Ambulatory Care
      Time commitment of the candidate to outpatient care. Include number of patients seen per week. Give place of care: Office/clinic, community, home visits, etc.
    • Inpatient Care
      Time commitment the candidate spends on direct patient care on the inpatient hospital service. Include number of patients for which candidates attending. Include average number of surgical cases done per week/year.

  2. Diagnostic/Consultative Service
    For services such as pathology, radiology, neurologic testing, EKG, etc., please give an analysis of time spent and nature of such activity.

  3. University Physicians Associates
    Include candidate's last two fiscal years statistics, with average data from division or department.

  4. University Hospital Committees
    Include all university/hospital committee activities. The committee name, position on the committee, e.g., member, chairperson, etc., dates of service, and an estimate of the monthly time commitment should be included.

  5. Clinical Administration
    Include responsibilities as service/division chief, clinical director, etc.

  6. Service/Consultation to Other Departments
    The service chiefs of University Hospital should be asked to comment on the quality service/consultation they receive from the candidate.

  7. Other Clinical Services
    Include all relevant activities not included above.
III. Scholarly Work (Scholarship/Research/Creative Work)

A. For Peer-Reviewed Activities (Similar to Tenure Track)

In many ways this item is both the easiest and most difficult for evaluation. In the case of research productivity, the total amount of grant funds obtained should be indicated as well as the ability to compete for renewal, papers published in peer reviewed journals, the number of papers on which the candidate is first or corresponding author, and the number of residents, graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows the candidate can attract to participate in his/her scholarly activities, books published, chapters published, etc.

It is clear, however, that not all scholarship need be in conventional biomedical research. Here are some examples: activities in development of new teaching techniques and programs, recognition by peers for contributing ideas about research, patient care, or teaching, recognition of the candidate as a responsible and effective critic, as well as certain other activities. To ensure that such activities are given proper consideration, the chair needs careful documentation of these kinds of scholarship. Most important, such contributions should have some recognition beyond the boundaries of the University of New Mexico.

For both kinds of recommendation evidence should be presented showing the recommended person as having national and/or international recognition. This argument could be supported by indicating membership on prestigious national committees, grant review boards, ad hoc recommendation groups, etc. Simple membership in national or international organizations is not enough, unless the organization is one which has a carefully selected membership based on achievement. Being an officer or a member of a committee of such a select organization should also be indicated.

The following should be used to document productivity in Scholarly Work

B. For Non-Peer-Reviewed Activities (Specific to Clinician Educator)

Provide a description of each activity, together with a detailed statement showing how it has contributed to the stated missions of the department and of the SOM and HSC. Explain how the activity has contained a significant educational component and how many of each type of learner have participated (junior faculty, students, and/or other trainees). Also explain how the activity has contributed to the health needs of the people of the State of New Mexico.

[Addition suggested by Integrating Group: Examples of such scholarly activities include, but are not limited to, book chapters, case reports, review articles, book reviews, abstracts, participation in symposia, poster and oral presentations, development of patient education materials, development of new educational methods, development of new courses, dissemination of information through Continuing Medical Education (CME) etc., development of new methods of assessment, mentoring of students, residents, and others in scholarly activities, and engaging in activities which promote access to health care and retention of physicians for underserved areas of New Mexico.] To be considered excellent in terms of quantity, these activities should make significant contributions to the missions and programs of the department, the SOM, and/or the HSC

IV. Letters of Support

Letters of support should be solicited from the following groups of individuals. Please be sure to state in the letter that replies will be held in confidence. Please refer to page E-1 in the current UNM Faculty Handbook for the section on "Confidentiality of Faculty Records."

  1. Departmental and Peer Letters of Support
    The senior faculty of the department (defined above) must provide written evaluations. In addition, the department chair should solicit independent letters of support from other peers. These letters should be addressed to the department chair. It is recognized that in some smaller units there may be fewer peers. In this case, the chair should solicit letters from peers outside of the department wherein the person writing knows the candidate well and can provide specific details about her/his performance. It is best to have some letters from people outside the department for all recommendations. If an individual has a secondary appointment in consideration for promotion, peers within that department should write letters of support also.

  2. Outside Letters of Support
    If the Clinician Educator faculty member is being recommended on the basis of his/her external interactions, accomplishments, recognition, or reputation, then external letters of evaluation from professional peers should be obtained. However, external letters are not required for Clinician Educator promotions that are not based on the above external considerations. In either case, past and current undergraduate medical students, residents, and graduate students should be solicited for evaluations of the faculty member's teaching.

    All letters of evaluation from peers outside of the university should clearly indicate whether or not the person being recommended has a prestigious reputation at the regional, national and/or international level. It is useful when soliciting these letters to include a complete C.V. and other printed materials that document the candidate’s contributions (publications, brochures, syllabi, etc.). The respondent should provide a candid appraisal of the candidate's achievements with some specific examples wherever possible. Most important, the respondent should also indicate whether or not the candidate would be promoted at her/his institution.
Directions for Completing Promotion Dossier/Notebooks
Clinician Educator
(revised X/00)

PROVIDE ONE SET OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS IN A HANGING FILE FOLDER AND ONE PHOTOCOPIED SET IN THE NOTEBOOK.

Below are the six sections in the promotion notebooks. Each section is referenced with instructions.

SECTION A - LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT CHAIR

The Chair's letter must state that the senior members of the Department have met and are recommending this individual for promotion and that individual letters from the senior members, or a single letter signed by all of them, is included. If the recommendation is not unanimous, please note this in the letter. Additionally, this letter should clearly make the argument for excellence in teaching and service and, if appropriate, in scholarly works, and should refer to the documentation contained in the dossier. Refer to page 1 of the "Clinician Educator Faculty Appointment and Promotion Guidelines - Comments and Recommendations for Chairs."

SECTION B – PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION FORM

The completed “UNM SOM Clinician Educator Promotion Form." (Forms available in SOM Office of Academic Affairs, Room 180 BMSB.)

If the faculty member being nominated for promotion has a secondary appointment and is being nominated for promotion in that department also, the Chair of that department must also sign the form and provide a letter of recommendation for promotion.

SECTION C - CURRICULUM VITAE

The faculty member's current C.V. using the SOM Standard Form C.V.

SECTION D - TEACHING/EDUCATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY

Use the guidelines from the UNM Faculty Handbook as well as the UNM SOM Tenure & Promotion Standards Guidelines (12/19/95) and the SOM Clinician Educator Appointment and Promotion Guidelines (Revised X/00).

SECTION E - SERVICE

Use the guidelines from the UNM Faculty Handbook as well as the UNM SOM Tenure & Promotion Standards Guidelines (12/19/95) and the SOM Clinician Appointment and Promotion Guidelines (Revised X/00).

SECTION F – SCHOLARLY WORKS

Use the guidelines from the UNM Faculty Handbook as well as the UNM SOM Tenure & Promotion Standards Guidelines (12/19/95) and the SOM Clinician Appointment and Promotion Guidelines (Revised X/00).

SECTION G - CONFIDENTIAL LETTERS OF EVALUATION

Use the SOM Clinician Educator Appointment and Promotion Guidelines (Revised X/00).

Note: Letters of evaluation received after the first Friday in December will be included in the permanent file but may not be included in the tenure/promotion notebook.