PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11788318

Evaluating faculty performance: a systematically designed and assessed approach.

Abstract

The authors explain how the Department of Family Practice and Community Health (DFPCH) at the University of Minnesota School of Medicine has responded to the need to create for its faculty an evaluation system that provides information for both feedback and merit-pay decisions. The development process, begun in 1996, is described, and its present format detailed. Also presented are the results of a 1999 assessment of the system, which found high satisfaction among the faculty and the department head. In particular, this system has allowed the department head to have a more objective basis for making salary decisions, to increase his role as coach, and to commit more time to career correction and/or development. Other observed outcomes include an enhanced ability to track faculty productivity, increased clarity in organizational structure and goals, increased research productivity, and early retirement of senior faculty receiving low evaluations. The key components of the DFPCH system mirror recommended elements for the design of faculty evaluation systems offered by evaluation professionals. Specific elements that the DFPCH found critical to success were stable and supportive departmental and project leadership, supportive faculty, skilled staff, a willingness to weather resistance to change, tailoring of the system to the department's specific needs and culture, and a willingness to allow the process to evolve. A key question that the evaluation system has evoked at the DFPCH is whether "merit" equals "worth"; that is, does the collective meritorious work of faculty members effectively address program and departmental goals?

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Carole J Bland, Lisa Wersal, Wendy VanLoy, William Jacott. 2002. Evaluating faculty performance: a systematically designed and assessed approach.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200201000-00006

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Evidence-based public health, community medicine, preventive care.

The use of evidence-based reasoning and decision-making theory and practice is becoming increasingly commonplace in most of the health sciences. Public health, which encompasses health protection, disease prevention and health promotion, has traditionally been more evidence-based than clinical medicine. However, more must be done to grade evidence in the absence of classical clinical trials or other experimental proof. Decisions in public health also rely on economical, social and political considerations, but how can evidence in these fields be graded for the best possible decision-making in public health? Moreover, evidence is often unequally distributed in relation to different focus groups. For example, evidence in the area of women's health should be as extensive as it is in the area of men's health. Medicine has traditionally been more ethically inclined than many other fields of human endeavour. In light of this, should we require all decision makers involved in health policies (i.e. politicians, economists, and other stakeholders) to be equally ethically minded? Decisions made without using the best evidence in setting the priorities of health programs and health policies may be ethically questionable. However, the burden and responsibility no longer lie exclusively on the shoulders of physicians and nurses. Evidence-based problem solving and decision-making in health sciences are only approximately a decade old. As a result, the already impressive, but still incomplete accomplishments of the evidence-based medical world require further advancements.

Community Medicine↗