Professorial Promotions Process

website:

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.

org/som/faculty/policies/

goldbook/index.html

Modified from Hillis, Jackson & Cofrancesco

• THEME: Focus early in a given area and develop a

body of work to become recognized as an expert

• SCHOLARSHIP/RESEARCH: Take the lead in

winning funding, developing and implementing

projects/programs, and publishing the results.

• PUBLISH: Publication of original data should take

priority over dissemination of existing knowledge.

What is the IMPACT of the work ?

Key strategy to meet promotion criteria 1

• LEADERSHIP: Take advantage of scholarly and

leadership opportunities at the

national/international level

• MENTOR: Consistently involve yourself with the

teaching/mentoring of students and document

both those activities and trainee outcomes

Key strategy to meet promotion criteria 2

“All faculty members must meet the same fundamental criteria for appointment or promotion at each rank. However, the specific accomplishments for meeting those criteria differ for each academic career. “

Paul McHugh, chair PPC, 1991

Multi-track system vs single track system ?

• …..” for it eventually produces strong feelings of discrimination and neglect. Harvard abandoned it.”Paul McHugh, 1991

“Promotion in academic rank is the usual way of recognizing scholarly achievement, yet how can we find standards that will encompass the several different excellences displayed by the biochemist, the GI surgeon, the bedside teacher, the gifted administrator. How can you be fair to all and yet protect the integrity of the promotional process and the professorate? This is the perennial matter of discussion in our committee.” Paul McHugh 1991

From McHugh, 1991

• For this purpose, we represent in our decisions faculty achievement in a graded fashion but encompass within each grade a variety of talents and contributions that we entitle scholarship. Discussions over scholarship devolve into three fairly distinct aspects:

• activities that produce knowledge

• activities that promulgate knowledge

• activities that apply knowledge.

Johns Hopkins School of Medicine Professors

• In the last 8 years, 315 faculty (236 men, 79 women) nominated for professorial promotion

• 272 or 86.3% have been recommended for professorial promotion (200 men and 72 women for success rates of 85% and 91% respectively)

JHSOM PPC Recommendation Rate for

Promotion by Academic Year (AY)

AY 08-09 33 of 35 94.2%

AY 07-08 41 of 46 89.1%

AY 06-07 29 of 31 93.5%

AY 05-06 27 of 33 81.8%

AY 04-05 34 of 38 89.5%

AY 03-04 38 of 46 82.6%

AY 02-03 33 of 37 89.2%

AY 01-02 34 of 45 75.6%

Faculty: characteristics of those promoted to professor(courtesy of Brooks Jackson)

Original research articles: Mean: 61 (13-148)

Original research articlesas First or Last Author: Mean: 34 (10-86)

H/J index Mean 25/16

Books: Mean: 1 (Range 0-8)Book chapters/monographs: Mean: 11 (Range 0-53)

Trainees mentored by faculty: Mean: 19 (Range 0-96)

• Current PI of an NIH grant – 70%

• NIH study section member – 48%

• Editorial Board member – 73%

• First/last author in highly respected journal (NEJM, JAMA,

Lancet, Cell, Science, Nature, Nature Med) – 48%

• President of a national society – 31%

Faculty Characteristics of 120 faculty promoted

H index

a scholar with an index of h has published h papers each of which has been cited in other papers at least h times.Th

Subscription-based databases such as Scopus and the Web of Knowledge provide automated calculators. Harzing's Publish or Perish program calculates the h-index based on Google Scholar entries. Google has a tool which allows scholars to keep track of their own citations and also produces a h-index

Other metrics to consider

• J index ~ first/last

• H/years on faculty

• c index ~ quality of citation

• i10-index indicates the number of academic papers an author has written that have at least ten citations from others

Had Einstein died after publishing his

four groundbreaking Annus Mirabilis in

1905, his h-index would be stuck at 4 or 5

• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~• July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 • Candidates considered Females Males• Approved 10 25• Not Approved• Withdrawn 1 3• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~• July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004• Candidates considered Females Males• Approved 6 34 • Not Approved 2 • Withdrawn 5 • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~•

• July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003• Candidates considered Females Males• Approved 12 24 • Not Approved 1 • Withdrawn 1 2 • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~• July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002• Candidates considered Females Males• Approved 8 26 • Not approved 5 • Withdrawn 5 • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~• July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001• Candidates considered Females Males• Approved 17 29 • Not approved 1 • Withdrawn 5 • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~• 9/1/99 - 6/30/00• Candidates considered Females Males• Approved 5 24• Not approved 0 3• Withdrawn 3• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~99/1/97 - 8/30/99• Candidates considered Females Males• Approved 6 61• Not approved 1 6• Withdrawn

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013

Candidates considered Females

Males

Approved/Reappt

Not approved

Withdrawn

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012

Candidates considered Females

Males

Approved/Reappt 8

21

Not approved 1

1

Withdrawn 1

3

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011

Candidates considered Females

Males

Approved/Reappt 8

27

Not approved 1

1

Withdrawn 0

3

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010

Candidates considered Females

Males

Approved 7

21

Not approved

2

Withdrawn 2

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009

Candidates considered Females

Males

Approved 8

25

Not approved 1

Withdrawn 1

1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008

Candidates considered Females

Males

“I want to emphasize that the selection of a Professor is an evaluative opinion that does not emerge from some formula as though it were a matter of what is due, such as advancement in school grades or a rise in rank through attaining a given number of merit badges. This selection rests on a judgment of quality built into such terminology as a leader, an authority, a scholar.”

Paul McHugh, 1991

Department Director sends nomination letter, CV, and suggested list of 10 referees to the Dean after internal department review.

Dean reviews material and sends to Professorial

Promotions Committee (PPC), a subcommittee of the

Advisory Board of the Medical Faculty (ABMF), for review

and recommendation.

PPC subcommittee assigned confidentially to review, asks

for additional 10-25 referee letters and makes

recommendation to full PPC. Usually contains content

expertise.

Professorial Promotions Process

The PPC sub-committee

If PPC recommendation to promote, then ABMF reviews

recommendation which is then held over to next ABMF

meeting for formal vote by voting members of ABMF.

If vote is negative for promotion, then must wait at least

two years before re-nomination. If vote is to recommend

promotion, then recommendation is sent to Board of

Trustees for vote of approval.

Professorial Promotions Process

What is a Educator’s Portfolio?

Includes documents and materials which collectively suggest the scope and quality of a faculty members teaching and educator performance.

(From Seldin)

THE EDUCATOR’S PORTFOLIO*Developed by the Silver Book Committee June 2005

• * The authors are indebted to the model of the Educator’s Portfolio that we have adapted for this document: Simpson DE, Beecher AC, Lindemann JC, Morzinski JA. The Educator’s Portfolio. Medical College of Wisconsin, 1995.

• The Educator’s Portfolio is a collection of materials that documents the quantity and quality of a faculty member’s educational activities. Since a criterion for rank at JHSOM is “evidence of creative scholarship in the area of primary expertise,” those faculty who identify education as their primary expertise will use the Educator’s Portfolio to convey evidence of creative educational scholarship.

• This document is designed to help you begin the process of building your Educator’s Portfolio. ……keep in mind the purpose for having a portfolio, which may be different for every faculty member. In the first few years of faculty appointment, the portfolio may be a resource for tracking your teaching activities and recording feedback evaluations ….for your teaching efforts. As you develop more and reflect on these experiences, you may discover a particular interest or “niche” in medical education that you would like to pursue. The portfolio review with a mentor at this point can direct your personal development into those areas needed in preparation for this work. More established faculty will have had opportunities to implement and test innovative instructional designs and curricula, and the portfolio can record these efforts in an appropriate manner

Purpose of teaching portfolio

• Improve Reflective Learning/Reflective Teaching• Factual description of a professor’s

– Strengths– Accomplishments

• Convey Evidence of Creative Educational Scholarship1. Quantity of teaching effort

2. Quality of teaching effort3. Impact of teaching effort4. Evidence of scholarship

• Scholarly teaching: using best practice• Teaching scholarship: discovering best practice

Based on The Educator’s Portfolio Silver Book Committee (June 2005)

CLINICIAN’S INNOVATION AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PORTFOLIO

Publication in peer review journals remains the primary measure of scholarly activity. It is highly recommended that faculty publish quality improvement efforts.A. Executive Summary B. Improvement ProjectsProject 1 (brief description of problem, goal, methods):• Role (chair, project lead, member)• Internal Scope (# units/clinics/departments/functional units involved in activity)• External Spread (# of external organizations/states/countries adopt

practice/initiative/methodology)• Sustainability (To what extent was improvement built into daily operations? How long has it

been sustained?)• Time/Effort (% time or length of time I devoted to effort; include project initiation and

completion dates)• Feedback (Feedback from others on the project, leadership that championed initiative (e.g.,

departmental chair, QI team leader), frontline clinicians and patients affected by change)• Magnitude of Impact (Does the project address a local, hospital-level, or national priority?

What is the magnitude of the improvement for patient care or outcomes?)• Results (Process or outcome measures, as applicable to initiative (e.g., reduction in

complications, adverse events, medication errors, improved compliance to guidelines, improved throughput, reduced LOS))

Converting Descriptive Paragraph to

Accomplishment StatementsJohns Hopkins Adult Hydrocephalus Program

Created the Johns Hopkins Adult Hydrocephalus

Program as a Center for Excellence supported by the

Johns Hopkins Hospital.

Demonstrated outpatient and inpatient

volumes that increased by nearly 200% in three

years.

Generated substantial profits of $1.3 million per

year by implementing auditing practices and

developing enhanced hospital coding systems.

Established cutting-edge clinical research

program by initiating new collaborative

relationships and cultivating industry support.

Questions ?

54

JHU acquisitions and affiliations

• Sibley: non-profit, 328 bed acute care in DC, (not regulated by HSCRC). Campus is also home to assisted living residence, Center for Rehabilitation Medicine.

• All-Childrens: 28-bed Neuroscience and Surgery Unit, one of Florida's busiest pediatric heart surgery programs, and outstanding pediatric heart, kidney and bone marrow/stem cell transplant programs. Largest NICU. Goal: to establish training and research programs. $ research will return to EB

• Perdana U., Malaysia: “Our ultimate objective … the development of Malaysia’s first fully integrated private teaching hospital and medical school….” EM

• Suburban: non-profit, 222 bed acute care. Joint

cardiac surgery and stroke programs with NIH. Will be close to new Walter Reed

• HCGH: Eric Aldrich VPMA growing programs with JHM.

ED, ICU, and hospitalist services now run there. Transfers frequent to JHH

EPIC roll out across system

Neurology Town Hall 9.15.2011

JHU acquisitions and affiliations

• Sibley: non-profit, 328 bed acute care in DC, (not regulated by HSCRC). Campus is also home to assisted living residence, Center for Rehabilitation Medicine.

• All-Childrens: 28-bed Neuroscience and Surgery Unit, one of Florida's busiest pediatric heart surgery programs, and outstanding pediatric heart, kidney and bone marrow/stem cell transplant programs. Largest NICU. Goal: to establish training and research programs. $ research will return to EB

• Perdana U., Malaysia: “Our ultimate objective … the development of Malaysia’s first fully integrated private teaching hospital and medical school….” EM • Suburban: non-profit, 222 bed acute care. Joint

cardiac surgery and stroke programs with NIH. Will be close to new Walter Reed

• HCGH: Eric Aldrich VPMA growing programs with JHM.

ED, ICU, and hospitalist services now run there. Transfers frequent to JHH

EPIC roll out across system

Neurology Town Hall

9.15.2011