- MEDICAL FACULTY SENATE
- Excerpts from a Report Discussed at SEC
Faculty--2000 Project: A Faculty-Based
Vision for the Medicine of Tomorrow
Profound changes in the delivery of health care during the last decade
are contributing to equally profound changes in the scholarly, educational
and service missions of academic health systems throughout the nation. The
University of Pennsylvania Health System has been remarkably successful
in adapting to these changes and is recognized as one of the leaders in
the nation in this regard. Nevertheless, these changes have created extraordinary
challenges for its faculty, academic physicians and non-physician scientists
alike. Perhaps the clearest effect of the altered environment is the difficulty
faced by junior faculty in meeting the increased demands for clinical service
and extramural funding, while at the same time maintaining scholarly and
educational productivity. It is thus timely and important to undertake a
review of the role of faculty within the Health System. This undertaking
is initiated and organized by the Steering Committee of the Faculty Senate
of the School of Medicine and is known as Faculty - 2000.
The goal of this review is to develop a faculty-based vision for delivering
new knowledge and outstanding health care. This goal is realized by having
faculty explore and identify strategies and tactics that enable them to
achieve their research, clinical and educational missions within the context
of an academic health system that requires outstanding service and management
skills in an environment of constrained financial resources. The focus of
the inquiry will be the mission, structure, organization and size of the
Standing Faculty (Tenured and Clinician-Educator tracks). Its scope will
include women, minorities, and husband/wife team faculty; the role of the
faculty in the research track; and issues of concern to senior faculty near
the end of their careers will be discussed. The methodologies that emerge
for advancing faculty missions must work within the framework of our current
faculty tracks and resources. The inquiry is open to new ideas from all
quarters of the Health System and University, and will engage a large portion
of the School's faculty over the next year. The recommendations that emerge
will undergo the normal review processes within the School of Medicine.
This review is undertaken in four Working Groups, and the Faculty-2000
Steering Committee has developed a clearly defined set of charges to each,
given briefly below. The lists of Issues identified are by no means exhaustive,
but give the flavor of each working group's task.
The Clinician Educator Faculty Working Group is
charged with critically examining the current and future state of the Clinician
Educator (CE) track within the School of Medicine. It needs to consider
the history, size, composition, standards and contributions of the CE track
here at Penn and at other comparable institutions. It needs to consider
issues like those outlined below, and provide specific recommendations for
the future of the track that can be considered for implementation at the
School and University levels.
Issues: What is the purpose of the CE track, and should it be
preserved as a distinct career pathway of the Standing Faculty within the
School of Medicine? Are the current criteria for promotion within the CE
track the most appropriate? Is the distinction between the CE track and
Tenured tracks appropriately defined? Should there be defined categories
of CE faculty such as clinician investigators, clinician teachers, and
clinician managers? Is teaching appropriately measured and weighted in
the promotion process? Should current limits on the size of the CE faculty
in the School be modified or eliminated? Should there be some form of tenure
for CE faculty? Should Health System physicians be allowed to practice
without restrictions at the core hospitals of the Medical School? What
new opportunities should be developed to improve financial support for
the teaching missions of School of Medicine faculty? How do we define CE
productivity? How do we maintain the highest level of scholarship for the
CE faculty? What is the impact of market forces on CE faculty, and what
strategies can be developed to use them to advantage? As we transit from
an academic to a corporate culture, will there be more control exerted
over CE faculty responsibilities, and what are the implications of this?
The Tenured Faculty Working Group is charged
with critically examining the current and future state of the Tenure Track
within the School of Medicine. It needs to consider the size, composition,
standards and contributions of this track here at Penn. It needs to consider
issues like those outlined below, and provide specific recommendations for
the future of the track that can be considered for implementation at the
School and University levels.
Issues: What exactly does it mean to be a tenured faculty member?
Is the size of the tenure faculty appropriate for its missions? How is
"productivity" defined for this faculty? Are the criteria for
appointment and promotion appropriate? Is the tenure probationary period
appropriately defined? Is the definition of tenured faculty in basic science
and clinical departments defined in the same way? Should there be an incentive
plan for tenured faculty? What is the role of unfunded research for faculty
in this track? Should expectations for income generated by this faculty
be specified in a more structured manner? What is the teaching role for
tenured faculty? How is teaching compensated? Is there a shift occurring
in this teaching role as new teaching technologies are introduced? Should
obligations for teaching by this faculty be defined in a more formal way?
What is the impact of Graduate Group teaching for tenured faculty? What
really are the contributions to promotion for teaching in this track? How
can tenured faculty better deal with regulatory and compliance issues?
Is the infrastructure for grant preparation, processing, and administration
adequate and appropriate? How will the lines of authority and control impact
tenured faculty as the Medical Center transits from an academic to corporate
culture, and will the "free agent" status of tenured faculty
in our current grant-based society undergo significant changes in the future?
What would be the implications of these changes?
The Working Group on Issues of Concern to Faculty with
Special Opportunities directs its inquiry on issues related to
Women Faculty, Minority Faculty, Husband/Wife Team Faculty, the Practitioner
Scholar Faculty and the Research Faculty. This working group needs to consider
the size, composition, standards and contributions of these various faculty
groups. It needs to discuss issues like those outlined below, identify strategies
and tactics that help assure success of these faculty members, and provide
specific recommendations that can be considered for implementation at the
School and University levels.
Issues: How effective are departments and faculty in the recruitment
and retention of women, minority and husband/wife team faculty? What mechanisms
can be identified to better assure the retention of women and minority
junior faculty? Does the School provide a proactive and aggressive environment
that supports all junior faculty, especially women and minorities? How
can the School facilitate the recruitment and retention of faculty with
disabilities? Should there be greater flexibility in defining job requirements
for these faculty members? Should productivity for these faculty be defined
any differently from the rest of the faculty? Does the recruitment process
for husband/wife team faculty coordinate the process properly? Should the
process be coordinated across the campus or just in the School? What impact
would the establishment of "Day Care" or "Elderly Care"
within the School and Hospital have on faculty? Does the School view parental
leave as a natural occurrence in the life of faculty, and encourage them
as a non-detrimental events in career development? What is the current
definition of the "Practitioner Scholar" faculty, and what roles
do they play within the School? Are the criteria for appointment and promotion
appropriately defined for this faculty? What is the current mission of
the Research Track faculty? Are the criteria for appointment and promotion
in this track appropriately defined? How do we distinguish between Tenured
and Research Track faculty? Should there be a Research Track, and does
it fill an identifiable role within the School and Health System? Again,
this list is far from exhaustive, but provides a flavor of the issues involved.
The Working Group on the Senior Faculty needs
to evaluate issues of concern to faculty nearing the end of their academic
careers. It needs to explore thoroughly how various departments and other
institutions treat senior faculty. It needs to collect data on the age distribution
of current faculty to determine if a "bubble" of senior faculty
is moving through the School. This evaluation is essential given the significant
increase in the size of the faculty during the past decade. The issues identified
below need to be considered further. The goal of this working group is to
identify strategies and tactics by which faculty can reach the end of their
careers with a sense of dignity and accomplishment, and how the school can
most effectively utilize the talents of its Senior Faculty. The working
group needs to provide specific recommendations that can be considered for
implementation at the School and University levels.
Issues: How does the School currently educate faculty on the
process of ending their careers, and is it effective? How can increased
publicity and accessibility be achieved for retirement education programs
for faculty? How can faculty retirement planning be initiated early and
be presented as an attractive, planned and personal choice activity? How
do departments deal with the financial problems that arise when senior
faculty begin to lose income earning power from clinical practices or grant
supported research? Are "phase out" service plans widely known
and understood by faculty? Are "early retirement" plans widely
known and understood by faculty? What is the current definition and scope
of age discrimination? Are faculty compensation plans at retirement sufficiently
strong, or should they be strengthened? What sort of culture clashes might
occur as more junior faculty, especially in the clinical departments, end
up supporting an ever-growing cadre of senior faculty? How can the School
best utilize the talents and expertise of senior faculty? Are there unique
teaching niches that can be filled by senior faulty? Should senior faculty
assume a more intense mentoring role?
[Ed note: Please see also SEC
Actions in this issue.]
Almanac, Vol. 46, No. 7, October 12, 1999
| FRONT
PAGE | CONTENTS
| JOB-OPS
| CRIMESTATS
| FACULTY-2000
| TALK ABOUT
TEACHING | BETWEEN
ISSUES | OCTOBER at PENN
|
|