Guidelines for Departmental P&T Review
- Minimum number of voting members: 3
- The department chair may participate only as an ex-officio, non-voting member.
- The department P&T committee may include faculty from outside the department (from elsewhere in the School of Medicine or on Grounds).
- Members may discuss and cast votes on candidates whose proposed rank is at or below their own rank.
- Tenured members may discuss and cast votes on all candidates; tenure-ineligible members may discuss and cast votes on tenure-ineligible candidates.
- The committee must review the candidate’s complete portfolio, including the internal, external, and independent letters of reference and provide written analysis pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the case
- The committee must address any negative or critical comments in the letters of reference.
- The department’s review should be formative; candidates should be given substantive feedback in time to strengthen their portfolios before final review and vote by the departmental committee.
- The committee recommends action to the department chair, via the completion of the Department P&T Committee Recommendation Form. The rationale for both positive and negative votes must be explained. The department chair makes the final decision about advancing or not advancing a candidate to be reviewed by the School of Medicine, and this may involve not accepting the recommendation of their department’s committee. The committee vote tally must be fully reported.
- In the event that the department chair does not support the candidate’s requested advancement, the candidate must be informed by September 30th. Any constructive feedback from the committee must be shared with the candidate. The candidate has until the second Monday in October to submit an appeal to the Dean’s Office.
- The chair and, where applicable, division chief will provide a Letter of Nomination addressed to the dean that provides detailed rationale for or against advancement. If the chair’s recommendation is in opposition to the committee’s recommendation, the chair’s rationale for the decision must be explained.
Guidelines for Department Chair Nomination Letters
- The letter should specifically identify the rank, track, and term (tenured or for three years) of the candidate’s requested advancement.
- If promotion/tenure is early, the reason for the early request should be discussed.
- Areas of Excellence:
- Indicate area(s) of excellence and summarize the evidence for excellence, including productivity in the domain, major contributions, significance of the contributions, impact on the field and in general, including outcomes. The strengths and weaknesses should be addressed and framed in the context of the promotion or tenure criteria. Evidence of excellence in clinical care and teaching should include reference to outcome measures. Evidence of excellence in research should include a summary of funding, publications, intellectual property if any, and future directions. Quotes from referee letters may be used as evidence.
- Scholarship should be summarized, and the forms and significance of the candidate’s scholarship should be discussed.
- Indicate the level of reputation (local/regional, national or international) and summarize evidence for reputation, including relevant quotes from referee letters.
- Contributions of service to the department, School, Health System, University, and/or to professional boards and organizations.
- Indication of the candidate’s exemplary demonstration of the Health System’s ASPIRE values.
- Given that all faculty are expected to adhere to and role model the ASPIRE values for all trainees and fellow team members, exemplary demonstration of our values is expected of all faculty members. Therefore a single sentence in your nomination letter (or your letter of reference in support of the nomination) that indicates the faculty member has met the expectation of adherence to the ASPIRE values is sufficient.
- Address any negative comments from referee letters
- Respond to any weaknesses addressed by the departmental P&T committee. Especially important if the committee vote was not unanimously in favor.
- Summary of the evaluation, including rationale for the recommendation, and any other remaining comments.