The Clinician-Educator Pathway in Radiology: An Analysis of Institutional Promotion Criteria

Khushboo Jhala, Jisoo Kim, Alison Chetlen, Joshua P. Nickerson, Petra J. Lewis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose To provide radiology departmental promotional committees and vice chairs of education with a more global perspective on the types of academic activity valued by institutions to aid in their faculty mentoring and standardizing of the Clinician-Educator (ClinEd) pathway. Methods Ninety-two research schools were ranked into three tiers. Ranking was correlated with the presence of a ClinEd track. Thirty promotion documents (ten from each tier) were analyzed to identify common criteria. Differences in guidelines between tiers were assessed by the frequency distribution of criteria. Results Tier 1 had a significantly greater proportion of schools with a ClinEd track than tier 2 (73% versus 44%, p < 0.05). Thirty-nine criteria were identified and organized into four categories teaching (13), scholarship (12), service/clinical excellence (7), and research (7). The top five included meeting presentations, trainee evaluations, leadership in committees, development of teaching methodologies and materials, and publication of book chapters. First and second tier schools were most similar in frequency distribution. Conclusions The criteria for the ClinEd promotion track still vary across institutions, though many commonalities exist. A handful of innovative criteria reflect the changing structure of modern health care systems, such as incorporation of online teaching modules and quality improvement efforts. As health care changes, guidelines and incentive structures for faculty should change as well. The information gathered may provide promotion committees with a more global perspective on the types of academic activity valued by modern-day institutions to aid in the national standardization of this pathway and to assist in faculty mentoring.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1588-1593
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American College of Radiology
Volume14
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2017

Fingerprint

Radiology
Teaching
Teaching Materials
Guidelines
Delivery of Health Care
Quality Improvement
Research
Publications
Motivation
Education
Mentoring

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Jhala, Khushboo ; Kim, Jisoo ; Chetlen, Alison ; Nickerson, Joshua P. ; Lewis, Petra J. / The Clinician-Educator Pathway in Radiology : An Analysis of Institutional Promotion Criteria. In: Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2017 ; Vol. 14, No. 12. pp. 1588-1593.
@article{8f3495a0b06a471783ae08f18b6220a6,
title = "The Clinician-Educator Pathway in Radiology: An Analysis of Institutional Promotion Criteria",
abstract = "Purpose To provide radiology departmental promotional committees and vice chairs of education with a more global perspective on the types of academic activity valued by institutions to aid in their faculty mentoring and standardizing of the Clinician-Educator (ClinEd) pathway. Methods Ninety-two research schools were ranked into three tiers. Ranking was correlated with the presence of a ClinEd track. Thirty promotion documents (ten from each tier) were analyzed to identify common criteria. Differences in guidelines between tiers were assessed by the frequency distribution of criteria. Results Tier 1 had a significantly greater proportion of schools with a ClinEd track than tier 2 (73{\%} versus 44{\%}, p < 0.05). Thirty-nine criteria were identified and organized into four categories teaching (13), scholarship (12), service/clinical excellence (7), and research (7). The top five included meeting presentations, trainee evaluations, leadership in committees, development of teaching methodologies and materials, and publication of book chapters. First and second tier schools were most similar in frequency distribution. Conclusions The criteria for the ClinEd promotion track still vary across institutions, though many commonalities exist. A handful of innovative criteria reflect the changing structure of modern health care systems, such as incorporation of online teaching modules and quality improvement efforts. As health care changes, guidelines and incentive structures for faculty should change as well. The information gathered may provide promotion committees with a more global perspective on the types of academic activity valued by modern-day institutions to aid in the national standardization of this pathway and to assist in faculty mentoring.",
author = "Khushboo Jhala and Jisoo Kim and Alison Chetlen and Nickerson, {Joshua P.} and Lewis, {Petra J.}",
year = "2017",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1016/j.jacr.2017.07.008",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "1588--1593",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Radiology",
issn = "1558-349X",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "12",

}

The Clinician-Educator Pathway in Radiology : An Analysis of Institutional Promotion Criteria. / Jhala, Khushboo; Kim, Jisoo; Chetlen, Alison; Nickerson, Joshua P.; Lewis, Petra J.

In: Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 14, No. 12, 12.2017, p. 1588-1593.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Clinician-Educator Pathway in Radiology

T2 - An Analysis of Institutional Promotion Criteria

AU - Jhala, Khushboo

AU - Kim, Jisoo

AU - Chetlen, Alison

AU - Nickerson, Joshua P.

AU - Lewis, Petra J.

PY - 2017/12

Y1 - 2017/12

N2 - Purpose To provide radiology departmental promotional committees and vice chairs of education with a more global perspective on the types of academic activity valued by institutions to aid in their faculty mentoring and standardizing of the Clinician-Educator (ClinEd) pathway. Methods Ninety-two research schools were ranked into three tiers. Ranking was correlated with the presence of a ClinEd track. Thirty promotion documents (ten from each tier) were analyzed to identify common criteria. Differences in guidelines between tiers were assessed by the frequency distribution of criteria. Results Tier 1 had a significantly greater proportion of schools with a ClinEd track than tier 2 (73% versus 44%, p < 0.05). Thirty-nine criteria were identified and organized into four categories teaching (13), scholarship (12), service/clinical excellence (7), and research (7). The top five included meeting presentations, trainee evaluations, leadership in committees, development of teaching methodologies and materials, and publication of book chapters. First and second tier schools were most similar in frequency distribution. Conclusions The criteria for the ClinEd promotion track still vary across institutions, though many commonalities exist. A handful of innovative criteria reflect the changing structure of modern health care systems, such as incorporation of online teaching modules and quality improvement efforts. As health care changes, guidelines and incentive structures for faculty should change as well. The information gathered may provide promotion committees with a more global perspective on the types of academic activity valued by modern-day institutions to aid in the national standardization of this pathway and to assist in faculty mentoring.

AB - Purpose To provide radiology departmental promotional committees and vice chairs of education with a more global perspective on the types of academic activity valued by institutions to aid in their faculty mentoring and standardizing of the Clinician-Educator (ClinEd) pathway. Methods Ninety-two research schools were ranked into three tiers. Ranking was correlated with the presence of a ClinEd track. Thirty promotion documents (ten from each tier) were analyzed to identify common criteria. Differences in guidelines between tiers were assessed by the frequency distribution of criteria. Results Tier 1 had a significantly greater proportion of schools with a ClinEd track than tier 2 (73% versus 44%, p < 0.05). Thirty-nine criteria were identified and organized into four categories teaching (13), scholarship (12), service/clinical excellence (7), and research (7). The top five included meeting presentations, trainee evaluations, leadership in committees, development of teaching methodologies and materials, and publication of book chapters. First and second tier schools were most similar in frequency distribution. Conclusions The criteria for the ClinEd promotion track still vary across institutions, though many commonalities exist. A handful of innovative criteria reflect the changing structure of modern health care systems, such as incorporation of online teaching modules and quality improvement efforts. As health care changes, guidelines and incentive structures for faculty should change as well. The information gathered may provide promotion committees with a more global perspective on the types of academic activity valued by modern-day institutions to aid in the national standardization of this pathway and to assist in faculty mentoring.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85027720897&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85027720897&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.07.008

DO - 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.07.008

M3 - Article

C2 - 28830663

AN - SCOPUS:85027720897

VL - 14

SP - 1588

EP - 1593

JO - Journal of the American College of Radiology

JF - Journal of the American College of Radiology

SN - 1558-349X

IS - 12

ER -