Criteria of the "educators' pyramid" fulfilled by medical school faculty promoted on a teaching pathway.

PURPOSE: To compare the results of academic promotion to associate professor and professor via the teaching pathway at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine (WFUSM) with the criteria of the "educators' pyramid" of Sachdeva et al. METHOD: Data on all candidates promoted to associate professor and professor in the academic years 1995-2000 at WFUSM were collected from candidates' portfolios and compared with the criteria for educator (level three) and master educator (level four) from a modified version of the educators' pyramid. RESULTS: Of 186 faculty promoted, 38 were on the teaching pathway. Everyone promoted on the pathway fulfilled all teacher and master teacher criteria. All educator criteria were found among the associate professors, and all but one of the master educator criteria were found among professors. More than 75% of associate professors demonstrated "sustained participation in significant amounts of effective teaching in more than one modality" and "service as a medical student clerkship, course, or residency director." Less than 30% demonstrated "service as assistant dean of education or student affairs" or "service as the chair of departmental education committees." Most associate professors had not regularly participated in national education meetings. For professors, more than 50% demonstrated "achievement of leadership positions in national organizations, committees, and medical school education"; "recognition as a national leader in specialty education"; and "mentorship of other faculty members locally and nationally." Less than 30% demonstrated "pursuit of further training in education through workshops, faculty development programs, or educational fellowship programs" or "development and implementation of nationally-recognized (in education) innovative curricula or teaching programs." No one promoted to professor on the teaching pathway had made what was considered to be a landmark contribution to educational research and development. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that the educators' pyramid is generalizable to medical faculty being promoted on a teaching pathway at WFUSM. Documentation of achievement in teaching criteria is essential and faculty should be encouraged to maintain records of accomplishment before becoming candidates for promotion.     

Expanding the view of scholarship: introduction.

The Association of American Medical Colleges' Council of Academic Societies (CAS) has a long-standing interest in scholarship as it relates to research, education, and service, the traditional definition of the activities of medical school. The work of Ernest Boyer and Charles Glassick is highly respected for redefining scholarship and conceiving how scholarship as thus defined can be assessed. Because their ideas have been applied in other areas of the academy but not widely in medical faculties, the CAS Task Force on Scholarship collected a special set of papers on Boyer's four areas of scholarship as applied to medical school, including case studies and the perspective from the university. The four areas of scholarship defined by Boyer and Glassick are the scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of application, and the scholarship of teaching. The scholarship of discovery-research-has for decades been the primary focus for promotion and tenure for medical school faculty, even though the faculty also had major and critical activities in the other areas of scholarship. The CAS hopes that the ideas put forth in this special theme issue will produce a continuing dialogue as faculty and administrators at medical schools reflect on the value of these different forms of scholarship, their application by medical school faculty, and their contributions to the individual missions of each medical school and teaching hospital. In addition, these articles will stimulate continuing discussions that will definite equitable methods for the continued assessment of the scholarly accomplishments of medical school faculty.     

Academic promotion at a medical school. Experience at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

We studied promotions at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine to determine whether clinician-teachers are less likely to be promoted or are promoted later in life than researchers and whether those who are promoted have more articles published than those who are not promoted. Over a five-year period, 93 percent of candidates for the rank of associate professor and 79 percent of the candidates for the rank of professor were promoted. There were no significant differences between clinical and research faculty members in terms of the probability that they would be promoted or their age at promotion to either associate professor or professor. Despite these findings, the responses to a questionnaire indicated that former faculty members perceived clinician-teachers as less likely than researchers to be promoted. Those who were promoted had had about twice as many articles published in peer-reviewed journals as those who were not promoted. We recommend improved counseling of medical school faculty members and more extensive discussion of the criteria for promotion and the chances of academic success.     

The Academy at Harvard Medical School: nurturing teaching and stimulating innovation.

The Academy at Harvard Medical School, established in 2001, was formed at a critical moment for medical schools in this country. Several decades of enormous growth in the biomedical research and clinical care activities of medical school faculty have resulted in great societal benefit. The unintended consequence has been a decline in faculty time and reward for the educational mission that is unique to a medical school. The impact of this decline is particularly felt now because the explosive growth in the science and technology relevant to medical practice, coupled with dramatic changes in the health care delivery system, calls for new models for the education of the next generation of physicians. The mission of the academy is to renew and reinvigorate the educational mission of Harvard Medical School (HMS). By bringing together a select group of some of the school's most talented and dedicated faculty and providing direct support for their work related to education, the academy has created a unique mechanism for increasing the recognition of teaching contributions of both academy members and the teaching faculty at large, fostering educational innovation, and providing a forum for the exchange of ideas related to medical education that cross departmental and institutional lines. The authors describe the academy's membership criteria, structure, governance, activities, institutional impact, and plans for long-term evaluation, and indicate challenges the academy will face in the future.     

Defining scholarship at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences School of Medicine: A study in cultures.

Medical schools' long-awaited recognition of the varied contributions of their faculty has caused active dialogue and debate. The discourse centers on the best approach for incorporating a broader definition of scholarship, including professional service, into the traditional promotion and tenure processes. At the School of Medicine of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS), the majority of the clinical faculty also serve as active-duty uniformed medical officers, and the subject of how to appropriately recognize their varied contributions has long been contended. Concerns have been raised from all constituent groups that broadening the definition of scholarship at the USUHS has the potential to lower the standards of the academy and thus devalue faculty positions. The USUHS has viewed this challenge as a study in the integration of cultures. Institutional cultures include those of the academy, the military, government, basic science, and clinical science, and all the resulting permutations. A nine-year review of scholarship, promotion, and tenure at the USUHS has resulted in a document that supports the diverse missions of the university and appropriately rewards the accomplishments of its faculty. The dialogue continues, as the new document is subject to continuing review and ongoing critical analysis.     

Measuring faculty effort and contributions in medical education.

A national panel on medical education was appointed as a component of the AAMC's Mission-based Management Program and charged with developing a metrics system for measuring medical school faculty effort and contributions to a school's education mission. The panel first defined important variables to be considered in creating such a system: the education programs in which medical school faculty participate; the categories of education work that may be performed in each program (teaching, development of education products, administration and service, and scholarship in education); and the array of specific education activities that faculty could perform in each of these work areas. The panel based the system on a relative value scale, since this approach does not equate faculty performance solely to the time expended by a faculty member in pursuit of a specific activity. Also, a four-step process to create relative value units (RVUs) for education activities was developed. This process incorporates quantitative and qualitative measures of faculty activity and also can measure and value the distribution of faculty effort relative to a school's education mission. When adapted to the education mission and culture of an individual school, the proposed metrics system can provide critical information that will assist the school's leadership in evaluating and rewarding faculty performance in education and will support a mission-based management strategy in the school.     

The UCSF Academy of Medical Educators.

The Academy of Medical Educators at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), was established in 2000 to (1) foster excellence in teaching, (2) support teachers of medicine, and (3) promote curricular innovation. A membership organization, it recognizes five categories of educational activity: direct teaching, curriculum development and assessment of learner performance, advising and mentoring, educational administration and leadership, and educational research. Excellent medical student teaching and outstanding accomplishment in one or more areas of educational activity qualify a teacher for membership. Candidates prepare a portfolio that is reviewed internally and by national experts in medical education. Currently 37 faculty members, 3% of the entire school of medicine faculty, belong to the academy. The academy's innovations funding program disburses one-year grants to support curricular development and comparisons of pedagogical approaches; through this mechanism, the academy has funded 20 projects at a total cost of $442,300. Three fourths of expended funds support faculty release time. Faculty development efforts include promotion of the use of an educator's portfolio and the establishment of a mentoring program for junior faculty members built around observation of teaching. The Academy of Medical Educators vigorously supports expanded scholarship in education; the academy-sponsored Education Day is an opportunity for educators to present their work locally. Recipients of innovations-funding program grants are expected to present their work in an appropriate national forum and are assisted in doing this through quarterly scholarship clinics. The Academy of Medical Educators has been well received at UCSF and is enhancing the status of medical education and teachers.     

Faculty development for educational leadership and scholarship.

The Medical Education Scholars Program (MESP) at the University of Michigan Medical School is designed to develop leaders in medical education. The program's goals are to enable faculty to provide curriculum direction, improved teaching, educational research, and development, and institutional leadership at all levels of medical education. This one-year program uses a variety of educational methods and provides a broad curriculum in educational theory, assessment and evaluation, research design and methods, teaching-skills development, and educational leadership. Faculty are admitted on a competitive basis and one half-day per week of release time is funded as part of the program. Salient outcomes of the program (promotions, educational research and development, curriculum leadership, and educational scholarship) were measured in a pre- and post-program design in which each scholar acted as his or her own control. There were major increases in promotions and educational awards, new educational responsibilities, and new educational programs. A particularly important outcome was the emergence of educational scholarship in the professional portfolios of the program scholars in the form of peer-reviewed presentations and publications and educational grant funding. A cost-outcome analysis indicates that these multi-year outcomes were obtained from a one-time investment of approximately $21,000 per graduating scholar. This evaluation indicates that intensive faculty development programs can have measurable impacts on the careers of the participants and the institutional environment.     

Obstacles to promotion? Values of women faculty about career success and recognition. Committee on the Status of Women and Minorities, Virginia Commonwealth University, Medical College of Virginia Campus.

PURPOSE: To assess attitudes of female faculty about career progress, resources for career development, and values related to academic success and recognition. METHOD: In 1997, the authors surveyed all faculty at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine and its associated Veterans Affairs Medical Center. RESULTS: Of 918 faculty, 567 (62%) responded to the survey; 33% of the respondents were women. Compared with men, women faculty were less likely to be tenured or at the level of professor, spent more time in clinical activities, had less time for scholarly activity, and reported slower career progress. Women were more likely to report that promotion and tenure criteria had not been reviewed with them. Significant differences were found between female physicians and non-physician faculty; female physicians reported the least time for scholarly activities and poorest understanding of promotion and tenure criteria. When the authors asked faculty how they valued certain indicators of career success, women were less likely to value leadership than were men. Female physicians were less likely to value scholarship and national recognition as indicators of their career success. CONCLUSION: This survey found important differences in career progress of male and female faculty, with women reporting less time for career development. In addition, there were differences in values related to career success and recognition, which were most pronounced for female physicians. These differences may have an important impact on promotion for women in general and particularly for female physicians.     

A conceptual model for faculty development in academic medicine: the underrepresented minority faculty experience

In May 2010, the Association of American Medical Colleges reported that nonwhite professors have a lower promotion rate than white professors. A cohort of 30 underrepresented minority (URM) junior faculty who participated in a structured faculty development program at a public, research-intensive, academic medical center were followed in a 10-year longitudinal study. This paper reports on the career status of 12 of the 30 URM faculty who were eligible for promotion during this period. Ninety-two percent (11/12) of URM faculty eligible for promotion were promoted to associate professor. When asked what factors contributed to their success, these URM faculty identified access and support of senior faculty mentors, peer networking, professional skill development, and knowledge of institutional culture. A faculty development program that addresses these components can promote the success of URM faculty in academic medicine.     

Promoting research in medical education at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.

Over the past seven years, educational innovations and scholarship have flourished at the University of California, San Francisco, (UCSF) School of Medicine. Prior to 1998, there was no infrastructure to support educational research and yet a few faculty members published in medical education journals and were active in national professional associations. With the initiation of curriculum reform in 1998, a great deal of excitement about education was generated and innovative new educational programs were envisioned. These changes became opportunities for educational scholarship. With the development of an Office of Medical Education in 1997 and the Haile T. Debas Academy of Medical Educators in 2001, the infrastructure was in place to expand educational research and the scholarship of teaching. The components of this support include educational leadership, faculty development, the Teaching Scholars Program, the Office of Educational Research and Development, the Academy, a Fellowship in Medical Education Research, collaborative research, and extramural grants. As a result of these investments, the number of UCSF faculty members who are involved in educational research has increased significantly. There has been a four-fold increase in peer-reviewed articles published in medical education journals and a greater increase in the publication of educational abstracts, editorials, chapters, and books, plus presentations at U.S. professional association meetings. In this article, the authors describe the changes that have occurred at UCSF to achieve these results.     

Documentation systems for educators seeking academic promotion in U.S. medical schools.

PURPOSE: To explore the state and use of teaching portfolios in promotion and tenure in U.S. medical schools. METHOD: A two-phase qualitative study using a Web-based search procedure and telephone interviews was conducted. The first phase assessed the penetration of teaching portfolio-like systems in U.S. medical schools using a keyword search of medical school Web sites. The second phase examined the current use of teaching portfolios in 16 U.S. medical schools that reported their use in a survey in 1992. The individual designated as having primary responsibility for faculty appointments/promotions was contacted to participate in a 30-60 minute interview. RESULTS: The Phase 1 search of U.S. medical schools' Web sites revealed that 76 medical schools have Web-based access to information on documenting educational activities for promotion. A total of 16 of 17 medical schools responded to Phase 2. All 16 continued to use a portfolio-like system in 2003. Two documentation categories, honors/awards and philosophy/personal statement regarding education, were included by six more of these schools than used these categories in 1992. Dissemination of work to colleagues is now a key inclusion at 15 of the Phase 2 schools. The most common type of evidence used to document education was learner and/or peer ratings with infrequent use of outcome measures and internal/external review. CONCLUSIONS: The number of medical schools whose promotion packets include portfolio-like documentation associated with a faculty member's excellence in education has increased by more than 400% in just over ten years. Among early-responder schools the types of documentation categories have increased, but students' ratings of teaching remain the primary evidence used to document the quality or outcomes of the educational efforts reported.     

Bringing good teaching cases "to life": a simulator-based medical education service.

Realistic medical simulation has expanded worldwide over the last decade. Such technology is playing an increasing role in medical education not merely because simulator sessions are enjoyable, but because they can provide an enhanced environment for experiential learning and reflective thought. High-fidelity patient simulators allow students of all levels to "practice" medicine without risk, providing a natural framework for the integration of basic and clinical science in a safe environment. Often described as "flight simulation for doctors," the rationale, utility, and range of medical simulations have been described elsewhere, yet the challenges of integrating this technology into the medical school curriculum have received little attention. The authors report how Harvard Medical School established an on-campus simulator program for students in 2001, building on the work of the Center for Medical Simulation in Boston. As an overarching structure for the process, faculty and residents developed a simulator-based "medical education service"-like any other medical teaching service, but designed exclusively to help students learn on the simulator alongside a clinician-mentor, on demand. Initial evaluations among both preclinical and clinical students suggest that simulation is highly accepted and increasingly demanded. For some learners, simulation may allow complex information to be understood and retained more efficiently than can occur with traditional methods. Moreover, the process outlined here suggests that simulation can be integrated into existing curricula of almost any medical school or teaching hospital in an efficient and cost-effective manner.     

End-of-life care in the curriculum: a national study of medical education deans.

PURPOSE: To describe attitudes and practices of end-of-life care teaching in the undergraduate medical curriculum in the United States as reported by administrative leadership and identify opportunities for improvement. METHOD: A telephone survey of associate deans for medical education or curricular affairs at a random sample of 62 accredited U.S. medical schools was conducted in 2002. RESULTS: Fifty-one deans participated (82% response rate). Most (84%) described end-of-life care education as "very important" and supported incorporating more end-of-life care teaching into the undergraduate curriculum. Sixty-seven percent reported that insufficient time is currently given to palliative care in their curriculum. Although a majority opposed required courses (59%) or clerkships (70%) that focused on end-of-life care, they did unanimously endorse integrating teaching end-of-life care into existing courses or clerkships. Key barriers to incorporating more end-of-life care into the curriculum included lack of time in the curriculum, lack of faculty expertise, and absence of a faculty leader. CONCLUSION: Associate deans for medical education or curricular affairs in the United States support integrating end-of-life care content into existing courses and clerkships throughout the undergraduate medical curriculum. Successful integration will require institutional investment in faculty development, including both the development of faculty leaders to drive change efforts, and the education of all faculty who teach students and exert influence as role models and mentors. The strong support for end-of-life care education expressed by academic leaders in this study, combined with the high level of interest expressed in the authors' 2001 national survey of students, provide evidence of the potential for meaningful change in the undergraduate medical curriculum.     

Integrating clinician-educators into Academic Medical Centers: challenges and potential solutions.

During the last decade academic medical centers (AMCs) have hired large numbers of clinician-educators to teach and provide clinical care. However, these clinician-educators often do not advance in academic rank, since excellence in clinical care and teaching alone is not adequate justification for advancement. The authors articulate the problems with the present system of recognition for clinician-educators-i.e., the requirement for regional and national reputation, the lack of reliable measures of clinical and teaching excellence, and the lack of training opportunities for young clinician-educators. They call for solutions, including fundamental changes in promotion criteria (e.g., focus criteria for promotion on clinician-educators' accomplishments within their institutions) and the development of valid and feasible methods to measure outcomes of teaching programs. Further, they recommend the development of a new faculty position, a "clinician-educator researcher," to foster the scholarship of discovery in medical education and clinical practice. Investments in clinician-educator researchers will ultimately help AMCs to achieve their threefold mission-excellence in patient care, teaching, and research.     

Teaching medical education principles and methods to faculty using an active learning approach: the University of Michigan Medical Education Scholars Program.

The Medical Education Scholars Program (MESP) at the University of Michigan Medical School was established in 1998 to develop educational leadership, improve teaching skills, and promote educational scholarship among medical school faculty. The Department of Medical Education designed and implemented the program. Eighty-one scholars have completed the MESP, with 15 more currently enrolled. While most scholars have been clinical faculty, some have been basic science faculty or from other allied health fields. The selection process emphasizes potential for contributing to the educational mission of the medical school. Each cohort is limited to two participants per department. The curriculum of the MESP is designed to provide an overview of a wide range of topics in education. It is divided into five broad domains: principles and theories of education, teaching methods, educational research methods, assessment and evaluation, and educational leadership. During the sessions, active learning of content is expected and encouraged. For instance, scholars share responsibility with the session presenters for planning and evaluating individual program sessions. To graduate, scholars are expected to attend the sessions regularly, and to make a final presentation of their project, which demonstrates near-completion or substantial progress toward that goal. Over its eight years, the MESP has evolved in response to environmental changes and ongoing evaluation of the program. Overall, the Medical Education Scholars Program has proven effective in developing faculty skills and educational leadership locally at the University of Michigan Medical School and nationally.     

Clinical faculty tracks and academic success at the University of California Medical Schools.

PURPOSE: To describe the five faculty series for medical school faculty in the University of California (UC) system, their criteria for advancement, associated challenges, and the different ways they are used by each school. METHOD: During 2001-02, the associate dean for academic affairs at each UC medical school was interviewed for information on the number of faculty in each academic series, the role of each series, and problematic issues associated with them. The averaged merit and promotion results for each series for 1999-2002 at the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, were examined. RESULTS: The two clinical faculty series showed the most variability among the UC campuses for number of faculty, and strategy for appointment and advancement. The percentage of faculty in the Clinical X series varied from 8% to 39% at the five campuses. All campuses agreed that faculty in the Clinical X series must participate in applied or translational clinical investigation or educational investigation, and disseminate their work. All campuses required that the Ladder-Rank and In-Residence faculty devote the majority of their time to hypothesis-driven research. At University of California, Davis, the two clinical series had the highest approval rates for merits and promotion actions. The Ladder-Rank series had the highest denial rate for merits and promotion. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical series in the UC system are used differently at the five medical schools. Appointing junior faculty in series with minimal expectations as a "safe starting place" is favored for building long-term faculty. Faculty in all series tend to do well in the academic review process, indicating that these series define distinct expectations. Clinical faculty's accomplishments are increasingly understood, valued, and rewarded.     

Making a case for the teaching scholar.

Medical schools are increasingly cognizant of their inability to critically evaluate faculty who support the core mission of education. To address this need, the Project on Scholarship was initiated by the Group on Educational Affairs (GEA) of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Building on and expanding previous definitions of scholarship and the associated criteria emerging in higher education, the project developed a set of "teacher as scholar" scenarios. These scenarios contained varied types of evidence for teaching scholarship and were discussed at the 1999 GEA regional meetings. Two major conclusions/recommendations emerged from these discussions: (1) the use of commonly accepted scholarship criteria (clear goals, appropriate methods, significant results, effective communication) provides a framework for identifying the types of evidence needed to document teaching scholarship, and (2) medical schools must create an infrastructure for promoting educational scholarship. This infrastructure must support the reliable and valid collection of evidence of educational scholarship and the continuous development of faculty as teaching scholars.     

Adoption and failure of the "Boyer model" at the University of Louisville.

In the 1990s two factors had a major impact on the promotion and tenure process at the University of Louisville (UL) School of Medicine. Clinical reimbursements declined, and as they did, faculty hired as income-generating clinicians continued to be evaluated as researchers. In addition, with legislation ending mandatory retirement, accountability and the requirement for demonstrations of continued competency increased. In part because of the need to recognize service and the need to evaluate post-tenure faculty, the Board of Trustees launched several ambitious initiatives that were collectively entitled "Redefinition of Faculty." The eventual acceptance of the policies under this umbrella included the adoption of the four kinds of scholarship defined by Ernest Boyer. However, because of faculty unrest regarding other facets of this initiative, compromises in the way that the Boyer model was adopted rendered the governance documents untenable. The difficulties with how the UL School of Medicine adopted the Boyer model are detailed, as are some of the lessons learned. Despite the difficulties, the concepts in Boyer's treatise have not been abandoned; the UL School of Medicine has embraced the need for a broadened view of scholarship in its newly emerging governance documents in which, for example, clinical service, formerly unrecognized as a promotable activity, is now recognized as such.     

Increasing the pool of educational leaders for UCLA.

The dual goals of the faculty Fellowship in Medical Education (MEF) program at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, established in 1992, are to prepare excellent teachers to serve as clerkship chairs, course chairs, or residency program directors while strengthening their dossiers for promotion based on a scholarly approach to curriculum development, implementation, and evaluation. Fellows are nominated from their departments and must demonstrate a strong interest in assuming educational leadership in their respective specialties. A total of eight fellows are accommodated each year based on interviews with the MEF faculty. The two-year program consists of two seminars and two projects focused on four objectives: to critique teaching and testing practices in medical education in light of current theories of learning; to develop and implement curricula that reflect these theories; to improve personal teaching skills through reflection and feedback; and to design and conduct an educational research or program evaluation study. An analysis of the curricula vitae of faculty members who have completed the fellowship suggest that this program continues to provide educational leaders for the school as originally intended. Of the 71 medical school faculty members who completed the MEF between 1993 and 2004 and have remained at the university, 43 (61%) have assumed new leadership roles in medical education. The evaluation data strongly suggest that the MEF has had a major role since its inception in creating a pool of faculty members with the confidence to manage the tasks of educational planning and implementation.