515 - Climbing the Ladder Without Seeing the Rungs: Promotions Criteria for Medical Educators

Saturday, April 29, 2023

3:30 PM – 6:00 PM ET

Poster Number: 515
Publication Number: 515.227

Amy Creel, LSUHSC, New Orleans, LA, United States; Gary L. Beck Dallaghan, University of Texas at Tyler School of Medicine, Tyler, TX, United States; Amal Khidir, Weill Cornell Medicine in Qatar, Doha, Ar Rayyan, Qatar; Caroline Paul, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York Cigy, NY, United States; Robyn Bockrath, Northwestern University The Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States; Jennifer Trainor, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine/Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States; Meg Keeley, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, United States; Joseph A. Jackson, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, United States; Javier E. Pineda, Tulane University School of Medicine, Metairie, LA, United States; Chris Peltier, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, United States; THANAKORN Jirasevijinda, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, United States; Rebecca Tenney-Soeiro, Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia, Swarthmore, PA, United States

Presenting Author(s)

AC

Amy Creel, Md (she/her/hers)

Associate Professor of Pediatrics
LSUHSC
New Orleans, Louisiana, United States

Background: The promotions and tenure (P&T) process remains the universal ladder to climb for career recognition and advancement in academic medicine. Faculty efforts, whether in research, patient care, or education, are affected by awareness of the metrics leading to career advancement. Social cognitive and goal setting theory frameworks support the importance of common practices and reward systems in motivating faculty efforts. In 2007 the Association of American Medical Colleges recommended standardization of medical education activity documentation and guidelines for academic promotion of educators. However lack of clarity in career trajectory and inequity in academic rewards remain for educators when compared in the traditional research paradigm.

Objective: Summarize criteria used in the P&T process to evaluate medical educators

Design/Methods: Using the Liaison Committee on Medical Education list of United States accredited allopathic medical schools, pediatric educators collected data from medical school websites. Categories were determined by traditional-set domains in schools as well as by peer-reviewed standards. Data was collected March through July, 2022. Extracted data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Frequencies were calculated for nominal and categorical data.

Results:
Of 155 Medical Schools identified, we found P&T criteria on publicly available websites for 143 schools (92.3%). Sixty-three percent of schools (91/143) identified a distinct educator track in their P&T guidelines, while 76% of medical schools (69/91) require traditional publications for promotion of clinicians on an educator track. Of institutions explicitly requiring traditional publications, only 14% specified the number of publications required for promotion.
Forty-two percent of all schools (60/143) and 48% of schools with a defined educator track (44/91), allowed workshops or other media to be considered when evaluating candidates for promotion. Only 57% (52/91) of schools with a specified educational track required additional documentation of teaching or education as part of their promotion process. Only 35.2% (35/91) specifically require an Educational Portfolio.

Conclusion(s): This study demonstrates that P&T criteria for medical educators lack standardization and transparency, and that the AAMC’s guidelines proposed over a decade ago are not consistently applied. PAS and other educational organizations can serve as leaders in calling for promotion standards that are transparent and consistent in recognizing contributions of educators and that limit opportunities for bias in the promotions process.