Three Year Three Year ReviewReviewGary NaglieGary Naglie

PurposePurpose

Mentorship

PurposePurpose

To ensure faculty are on track for successful promotion and advancement

To ensure that faculty have the right job description

To provide feedback re progress

Process – When?Process – When?

The review usually takes place in the spring of the 3rd year of appointment as Assistant Professor

Extensions can be granted on individual basis by Chair Dept Med (e.g. maternity/paternity leave, health problems)

Process – What?Process – What?

You submit a CV, a complete teaching dossier, and an educational teaching summary according to Faculty format

Formatting information available at (www.deptmedicine.utoronto.ca)

Process – What?Process – What?

Your PIC and DDD are responsible for writing letters of support

Process – How?Process – How? All materials are forwarded to the 3 Year

Review Committee 10-12 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 arrived at

Process - ConclusionProcess - Conclusion

The Chair of the committee drafts a letter for the Chair Dept Med conveying the committee’s 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

Process - ConclusionProcess - Conclusion

The Dept Chair reviews committee’s conclusions as well as documentation available to committee and makes final decision about each candidate

The Dept Chair shares this information with the PIC and DDD, who then convey the information to the candidate

Common DeficienciesCommon Deficiencies

CV is not formatted correctly and/or is incomplete

CV is missing information about faculty’s contribution to activities (e.g. course development, manuscript publications, abstracts, grants, committee work)

CV does not include information about manuscripts and grants that have been submitted or are in preparation

Common DeficienciesCommon Deficiencies Teaching dossier is not formatted

correctly and/or is incomplete Teaching dossier lacks teaching

evaluations and TES scores Teaching dossier does not clearly

distinguish formal teaching hours from bedside teaching and grossly inflates teaching hours

Teaching dossier includes superfluous information (e.g. PowerPoint presentations, copies of pages from outlook calendar)

TipsTips Format your CV according to Faculty

format and update it regularly (i.e. don’t wait until you get the letter requesting this for your 3 year review)

Create an educational dossier according to Faculty format and update it regularly (ibid)

Keep a file for all teaching evaluations, TES scores, thank you letters for teaching and presentations, flyers advertising your talks, etc. (lack of documentation can make for a very thin teaching dossier that is difficult to evaluate)

TipsTips Ask your PIC and/or DDD for help with

your CV and/or teaching dossier Meet annually with your PIC and DDD

to get constructive feedback (they want to help you be successful)

Let your PIC and DDD know early on if you are having any difficulties fulfilling your job description

If you need additional help, book a meeting with the Dept. Chair (she wants to help you be successful)

SummarySummary The 3 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)

Don’t wait to the last minute to get your documentation in order (this could give you and Jim Hartley a nervous breakdown)

Meet annually with your PIC and DDG for constructive feedback (they want to help you be successful)