Appendix 8: Instructions to Review and Appraisal Committees for the Health Sciences Clinical Professor Series

I. Policy
II. Purpose and Responsibility of the Review Committees
III. Maintenance of the Committee’s Effectiveness
IV. Procedures
       A. General
       B. Appointments
       C. Promotions
       D. Assessment of Evidence
V. Criteria for Appointment, Promotion and Appraisal (APM 210-1-d)
       A. Teaching
       B. Professional Competence and Activity
       C. Creative Administrative, Academic and Research Activities
       D. University and Public Service
VI. The Report

 

Synopsis of Academic Personnel Manual Section 210-6



Instructions to Review Committees which advise on actions concerning the Health Sciences Clinical Professor Series.

I. Policy

In their deliberations and preparations of reports and recommendations, academic review and appraisal committees shall be guided by the policies and procedures set forth in the respective "instructions" which appear below.

II. Purpose and Responsibility of the Review Committees

The quality of the faculty of the University of California is maintained primarily through objective and thorough appraisal, by competent faculty members, of each candidate for appointment or promotion. Responsibility for this appraisal falls largely upon the review committees nominated by the Council on Academic Personnel and appointed by the Chancellor or a designated representative. It is the duty of these committees to ascertain the present fitness of each candidate and the likelihood of the candidate’s pursuing a productive career. In judging the fitness of the candidate, it is appropriate to consider professional integrity as evidenced by performance of duties. (A useful guide for such consideration is furnished by the Statement on Professional Ethics issued by the American Association of University Professors. A copy of this Statement is appended to these Instructions for purposes of reference.) Implied in the committee’s responsibility for building and maintaining a faculty of the highest excellence is also a responsibility to the candidate for just recognition and encouragement of achievement.

III. Maintenance of the Committee’s Effectiveness

  1. The membership, deliberations, recommendations and report of the review committee are strictly confidential. The Chairperson of each such committee should remind members of the committee of the confidential nature of the assignment. This should be kept in mind in arranging for all written or oral communications; and when recommendations with supporting documents have been forwarded, all copies or preliminary drafts should be destroyed. Under the provisions of = (pdf), the candidate is entitled to receive from the Chancellor, redacted copies of all confidential documents in the review file (without disclosure of the identities of members of the review committee).
  2. The whole system of academic review by committees depends for its effectiveness upon each committee’s prompt attention to its assignment and its conduct of the review with all possible dispatch, consistent with judicious and thorough consideration of the case.
  3. The Chairperson of the review committee has the responsibility of making sure that each member of the committee has read and understands these instructions.

IV. Procedures

A. General

Recommendations concerning appointment, promotion, and appraisal normally originate with the Department Chair. The letter of recommendation, submitted by the Department Chair to the Chancellor, should provide a comprehensive assessment of the candidate’s qualifications together with detailed evidence to support this evaluation. The letter should also present a report of the Department Chair’s consultation with the members of the department, including any dissenting opinions, and a summary of the report of the department’s standing or ad hoc review committee. It is preferable, however, that the report of the department’s standing or ad hoc review committee be placed as a separate document in the dossier. The candidate is expected to assemble and submit to the Department Chair an up-to-date biography (curriculum vitae) and bibliography, together with copies of research publications or other scholarly or creative work, to be subsequently submitted by the Department Chair to the Chancellor. 

B. Appointments

The Department Chair should include in the documentation opinions from colleagues in other institutions where the nominee has served and from other qualified persons having firsthand knowledge of the nominee’s attainments. Extramural opinions are imperative in cases of proposed appointments of persons from outside the University.

C. Promotions

Promotions are not automatic but are based on achievement and require a consideration of comparable work in the candidate’s own field or in closely related fields. The department and the review committee should consider how the candidate stands in relation to other people in the field outside the University who might be considered alternative candidates for the position. The Department Chairperson may supplement the opinions of colleagues within the department by letters from distinguished extramural informants.

 

D. Assessment of Evidence

The review committee shall assess the adequacy of the evidence submitted. If in the committee’s judgment the evidence is insufficient to enable it to reach a clear recommendation, the committee Chairperson, through the Chancellor, shall request amplification. In every case all obtainable evidence shall be carefully considered.

If, in assessing all obtainable evidence, the candidate fails to meet the criteria set forth in APM 210-1-d below, the committee should recommend accordingly. If, on the other hand, there is evidence of unusual achievement and exceptional promise of continued growth, the committee should not hesitate to endorse a recommendation for accelerated advancement.

V. Criteria for Appointment, Promotion and Appraisal (APM 210-1-d)

The policies and procedures set forth in APM-210-1(a), (b), (c), and (e) shall govern the committee in the confidential conduct of its review and in the preparation of its report. The committee should refer to the relevant section of The CALL for policies on the Health Sciences Clinical Professor series.

The review committee shall judge the candidate with respect to the proposed rank and duties, considering the record of the candidate’s performance in

1. teaching;

2. professional competence and activity;

3. Scholarly or creative activity; and

4. university and public service.

The activities in items (3) and (4) may be derived from the candidate’s primary responsibilities in clinical teaching and professional service, and thus shall be appropriately weighted and broadly defined to take into account the primary emphasis on clinical teaching and patient care.

The Dean or Department Chair is responsible for documenting the faculty member’s division of time and effort among the four areas of activity; this written recommendation shall be placed in the dossier and shall be shared with the faculty member. The Chair shall indicate the appropriateness of this division of time to the position that the individual fills in the department, school, or clinical teaching faculty.

Appointees in the Health Sciences Clinical Professor series shall be evaluated in relation to the nature and time commitments of their assignments. Faculty with part-time appointments are expected to show the same quality of performance as full-time appointees, but the amount of activity may be less.

Letters of evaluation from internal evaluators are required for health care professionals in the Health Sciences Clinical Professor series being considered for appointment or promotion to the Associate Professor or Professor ranks, for advancement to Step VI or the Above-Scale step. Although letters of evaluation from external informants are not required for faculty in the Health Sciences Clinical Professor series who are being considered for appointment or promotion to the Associate Professor or Professor ranks, they may be useful to document regional or national recognition of professional competence and activity. Letters of evaluation from external informants are required for appointment or advancement to Step VI and the Above-Scale step for all faculty in the Health Sciences Clinical Professor series.

Clinical teaching, professional activity, and scholarly or creative work may differ from standard professorial activities in the University, but can be judged on the basis of professional competence, intellectual contribution, and originality.

The criteria set forth below are intended to serve as guides for the review committee in judging the candidate, not to set boundaries to the elements of performance that may be considered.

A. Teaching

Excellent teaching is an essential requirement for advancement in the series. Appointments may be made based on the promise of teaching excellence when appropriate. Teaching may involve health professional students, graduate students, interns, residents, postdoctoral fellows, or continuing education students. Clinical teaching is intensive tutorial instruction carried on amidst the demands of patient care, and often coinciding with pressure on the teacher to cope with unpredictable and varied clinical events and the stress of attending to the immediate needs of patients, while concurrently instructing the trainee in the exercise of judgment and the performance of optimal patient care. Nevertheless, the criteria for evaluating teaching that are described in the instructions for the Regular Professor series are applicable to the Health Sciences Clinical Professor series:

 

"... the candidate’s command of the subject; continuous growth in the subject field; ability to organize material and to present it with force and logic; ... fostering of student independence and capability to reason; spirit and enthusiasm which vitalize the candidate’s learning and teaching; ability to arouse curiosity in beginning students, to encourage high standards and to stimulate advanced students to generate creative work; personal attributes as they affect teaching and students; the extent and skill of the candidate’s participation in the general guidance, mentoring, and advising of students; effectiveness in creating an academic environment that is open and encouraging to all students.” (APM 210-1-d(1))

In addition, the clinical teacher should be successful in applying knowledge of basic health science and clinical procedures to the diagnosis, treatment, and care of a patient in a manner that will not only assure the best educational opportunity for the student, but also provide highest quality care for the patient. Dossiers for advancement and promotion normally will include evaluations and comments solicited from trainees. For initial appointment to the Health Sciences Assistant Clinical Professor title the candidate may have a record of active teaching, or an appointment may be made based on the promise of teaching excellence. For appointment or promotion to the Health Sciences Associate Clinical Professor title demonstrated excellence in teaching and mentoring is essential, including excellent teaching evaluations or teaching awards. Other evidence may include invitations to present grand rounds or other important lectures at UCLA and other institutions or at courses or workshops sponsored by professional organizations, and documentation of activity as a mentor or status as a role model.

For appointment or promotion to the Health Sciences Clinical Professor title the candidate should be recognized for sustained excellence as a teacher and/or mentor. Evidence includes excellent teaching evaluations or teaching awards, invitations to present lectures at UCLA and other institutions or at courses or workshops sponsored by professional organizations, and documentation of activity as a mentor or status as a role model.

 

B. Professional Competence and Activity

There must be appropriate evaluation and recognition of professional activity. Exemplary professional practice, organization of training programs for health professionals, and supervision of health care facilities and operations comprise a substantial proportion of the academic effort of many health sciences faculty. The candidate’s professional activities should be reviewed for evidence of achievement and leadership in the development or utilization of new approaches and techniques to solve clinical and professional problems. These are essential contributions to the mission of the University and deserve critical consideration and weighting comparable to those of teaching and creative activity. It is expected that there will be continued proficiency and growth in scope and breadth of responsibility.

1. Standards for Appointment or Promotion

For appointment or promotion to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor in this series there should be evidence of excellence in clinical and professional activity. Such evidence may include, but is not limited to:

a. provision of high-quality patient care;

b. a high level of competence in a clinical specialty;

c. expanded breadth of clinical responsibilities;

d. significant participation in the activities of clinical and/or professional groups;

e. reputation as an outstanding referral health-care provider;

f. effective development, expansion or administration of a clinical service; and

g. recognition or certification by a professional group.

As a general rule, for appointment and promotion at the rank of Associate Health Sciences Clinical Professor or above, faculty should demonstrate excellence in teaching, distinguished clinical and professional expertise, scholarly or creative contributions, meritorious service, and substantial growth and accomplishment in their area of expertise.


2. Evaluation of Clinical Achievement

Evaluation of clinical achievement is both difficult and sensitive. In many cases, evidence will be testimonial in nature and, therefore, its validity should be subject to critical scrutiny. The specificity and analytic nature of such evidence should be examined; the expertise and sincerity of the informant should be weighed.

Overly enthusiastic endorsements and cliché-ridden praise should be disregarded. Comparison of the individual with peers at the University of California and elsewhere may form part of the evidence. Letters from outside authorities, when based on adequate knowledge of the individual and written to conform to the requirements cited above, are valuable contributions. Evaluation or review by peers within the institution is necessary. The Chair should also seek evaluations from current and former trainees.

If adequate information is not included in the materials sent forward by the Chair, it is the responsibility of the CAP-appointed review committee to request such information through the Chancellor.

C. Creative Administrative, Academic and scholarly Activities

In order to be appointed or promoted to the Associate Professor or Professor rank in this series it is necessary that the individual’s record demonstrate creative contributions to administrative, academic or scholarly activities. This criterion can be satisfied by evidence of substantive contributions, some examples of which include the following (this list is not meant to be all-inclusive):

  • Development of or contributions to educational curricula
  • Development of or contributions to administration of a teaching program
  • Participation in the advancement of professional education
  • Development of or contributions to original material in handouts for lectures
  • Development of or contributions to informational brochures with regard to the individual’s specialty or area of interest targeted to physicians, allied health professionals and/or patients
  • Lectures, original educational materials, or teaching files placed on resident website
  • Participation in platform or poster presentations at local, regional, or national meetings
  • Participation in research, not necessarily as primary or independent investigator (in some cases, the individual’s participation in research may be sufficiently substantial to warrant a reduced breadth of clinical responsibilities)
  • First, senior, or collaborative authorship of peer-reviewed research papers
  • Publication of case reports or clinical reviews
  • Development of or contributions to administration (supervision) of a clinical service or health care facility
  • Development of or contributions to clinical guidelines or pathways
  • Development of or contributions to quality improvement programs
  • Development of or contributions to medical informational systems
  • Participation in the advancement of University professional practice programs
  • Development of or contributions to community-oriented programs; and
  • Development of or contributions to community outreach or informational programs


D. University and Public Service

The review committee should evaluate both the amount and the quality of service by the candidate to the department, the school, the campus, the University, hospitals, governmental agencies, professional organizations, journals and the public, paying particular attention to that service which is directly related to the candidate’s professional expertise and achievement. For initial appointment to the Health Sciences Assistant Clinical Professor rank, the candidate should be evaluated for the likelihood of participation in departmental activities and the potential for service to the University. For appointment or promotion to the Health Sciences Associate Clinical Professor rank, University and public service may be demonstrated by active participation on committees or task forces within the program, department, school, campus or University, or by service to local, regional, State, national, or international organizations through education, consultation, or other roles.

For appointment or promotion to the Health Sciences Clinical Professor rank, outstanding service may be demonstrated by awards from the University or from local, regional, national or international organizations, by appointment to administrative leadership positions within the University (such as clinical program director, residency director, and committee chair) or within professional, scientific or governmental organizations, or by appointment to the editorial boards of journals. The Department Chair should provide a list of the candidate’s service activities, an explanation of the role of the services in relation to University programs, and an analysis of the quality of the candidate’s service.

 

VI. The Report

1.  The report of the review committee  forms the basis for further review by the department, the Dean and the Council on Academic Personnel, and for action by the Chancellor. Consequently, the report should include an appraisal of all significant evidence, favorable and unfavorable. It should be specific and analytical and should include the review committee’s evaluation of the candidate with respect toeachofthequalificationsspecifiedabove.Itshouldbeadequatelydocumentedby reference to the supportingmaterial.

Each review committee member is not necessarily expected to appraise every such item as long as representative works are evaluated. In its report, the review committee should provide its own independent analysis and assessment of the research and/or creative activity and should not merely summarize the opinions expressed in the letters of reference and by the department.

2.  The review committee has the responsibility of making an unequivocal recommendation.Nomembershouldsubscribetothereportifitdoesnotrepresent that member’s judgment. If the committee cannot come to a unanimous decision, the division of the committee and the reasons therefore should be communicated either in the body of the report or in separate consulting or dissenting statements by individual members, submitted with the main report and with the cognizance of the other committeemembers.

3.  Care should be taken in the preparation of the review committee report to preserve and protect the identity of those individuals who have submitted confidential evaluations. Reference to statements made by these individuals may only be included in a coded format, e.g., “letter writer #4 states...”, or “the author of the August 1, 1994 letter acknowledges....”.

 

* * * *

See Appendix 5, "Instructions to Review and Appraisal Committees" for the American Association of University Professors Statement on Professional Ethics referred to in the first section of these instructions.


 

 

Revised 07/01/18

 

Web page updated 07/01/18