Panel 9

How should Post Recruitment Evaluation and Guidance be Defined?


Chair: Francis Waldvogel, Emeritus, past Chair, Department of Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland
Vice Chair:       Arnaud Perrier, Head of the Division of General Internal Medicine and Head, Department of
Internal Medicine, Rehabilitation and Geriatrics, University of Geneva, Switzerland
Members: Scott Friedman, Dean for Therapeutic Discovery, Fishberg Professor of Medicine,
Professor of Pharmacology and Systems Therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai,
New York, USAartment of Internal Medicine, Rehabilitation and Geriatrics, University of Geneva, Switzerland
Sonja Hammerschmid, President, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria
Martin Täuber, President of the University of Berne, Switzerland
Nu Viet Vu, Director of the Unit for Development and Research in Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland


Abstract 
Optimal evaluation should be non-judgmental, independent, holistic, based on solid metrics and values, and integrative. In academics, the extension of the Chair’s activities including scientific production, clinical duties, coaching, teaching and management and interpersonal relationship render such evaluations difficult: They should be integrated in a general scheme with quantitative indicators (H-index, numerical ratings), qualitative measures (pedagogy, peer reviews) and subjective appraisals (management, social skills, self-evaluation).

We propose an initial, “relative” evaluation at appointment, where the goals, and performance outcomes are matched with the means available. This roadmap allows an integrated approach including recurrent coaching, and midterm evaluation.

“The achieved milestones should be appraised by conventional criteria (scientometry, capacity building), but also in the context of the recruitment intended mission (creation or fusion of departments) and the chair’s personal approach (integrity, commitment).

Evaluations start at the Dean’s office, and should include senior faculties, hospital CEOs, colleagues-experts from other medical schools. The documentation includes written annual reports, achievement evidence, a 360-degree evaluation by various collaborators and staff, and most importantly the chair’s self-appraisal regarding his/her achievements, personal satisfaction and future milestones. Feedback is given by the Dean’s office in written form, allowing a reply from the Chair.

Tutorial support (coaching by professionals, by peers and former chairs), is highly recommended, allowing to explore new areas of academic interest. In summary, an integrated approach, linking appointment criteria -coaching/guidance-midterm reciprocal appraisal-reelection in a continuous flow is highly desirable, as an element of a total quality procedure.


Fulltext of Panel 9 (PDF, 642 KB)