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 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. In addition to the letter of recommendation, the Department Chair is expected to assemble and submit to the Chancellor an up-to-date biography and bibliography, together with copies of research publications or other scholarly or creative work.

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 based on merit; they are not automatic. Achievement, as it is demonstrated, should be rewarded by promotion. Promotions should be based on 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 Section 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. creative administrative, academic, or research activities; and

4. university and public service.

The Department Chair is responsible for documenting the faculty member’s division of effort among the four areas of activity. The Chair should also indicate the appropriateness of this division to the position that the individual fills in the department, school, or clinical teaching faculty.

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 the regional or national recognition of professional competence and activity achieved by other health care professionals. 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.

Appointees in the Health Sciences Clinical Professor series are to be evaluated in relation to the nature and time commitments of their University assignments.

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.

Clinical teaching, professional activity, and 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.

A. Teaching

Excellent teaching is an essential criterion 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, residents, postdoctoral fellows, or continuing education students. Clinical teaching is intensive tutorial instruction, carried on amid the demands of patient care and usually characterized by pressure on the teacher to cope with unpredictably varied problems, by patient-centered immediacy of the subject matter, and by the necessity of preparing the student to exercise judgment and/or take action as a result of the interchange. Nevertheless, the criteria suggested in the instructions for the Regular Professor series are applicable:

"... 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 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.

B. Professional Competence and Activity

There must be appropriate recognition and evaluation 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. In decisions on academic advancement, 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 also be, evidence of excellence in clinical and professional activity. Such evidence may include, but is not limited to, evaluations that demonstrate:

  • provision of high-quality patient care
  • a high level of competence in a clinical specialty
  • expanded breadth of clinical responsibilities
  • significant participation in the activities of clinical and/or professional groups
  • reputation as an outstanding referral health-care provider
  • effective development, expansion or administration of a clinical service
  • recognition or certification by a professional group.

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

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 provided. 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 advanced clinical students and former students in academic positions or clinical practice.

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

C. Creative Administrative, Academic and Research 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 research 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
  • 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, and the public, paying particular attention to that service which is directly related to the candidate’s professional expertise and achievement. The Department Chair should provide a list of service activities, an explanation of the role of the services in relation to University programs, and an analysis of the quality of this service.

VI. The Report

      1. The report of the review committee forms the basis for further review by the Committee on Academic Personnel or its equivalent and for action by the Chancellor and by the President. 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 to each of the qualifications specified above. It should be adequately documented by reference to the supporting material.
        Each review committee member is not necessarily expected to appraise every such item as long as representative works are evaluated. In its report, the ad hoc 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. No member should subscribe to the report if it does not represent 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 committee members.
      3. Care should be taken in the preparation of the ad hoc 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 AAUP Statement on Professional Ethics referred to in the first section of these instructions.



Revised 05/22/09


Web page updated 06/05/15