Promotion 2005: Physicians Benchmarks and Proposed Revisions

1
Promotion 2005 Physicians Benchmarks and
Proposed Revisions
Physicians Professional Advisory Committee
(PPAC) Promotion Benchmarks Committee, Nov 2004
Prepared by CDR Jeffrey Kopp, MD
v.8May05
2
PPAC Benchmarks Subcomittee 2004

• CAPT Sarah Linde-Feucht, FDA and
• CDR Jeffrey Kopp, NIH, Co-Chairs

3
Background

• Promotion precepts 2 and 3 (category specific)
  are prepared by PPAC
• Precepts 1 and 4 are prepared by the Chief
  Professional Officer (CPO) committee
• Precept 5 (Readiness) is prepared by Office of
  Force Readiness and Deployment (ORFD)
• Each precept contains multiple factors (elements)
• Benchmark revision process
• - prepared by PPAC subcommittee
• - approved by full PPAC
• - approved by the CPO committee
• - approved by Asst Sec Health in consultation
  with Surgeon General

4
Background

• The present benchmarks were prepared in early
  2003 by all of the PACs and CPOs, and approved in
  late fall 2003
• This version was used for PY04 and probably also
  PY05
• The PPAC Benchmarks Subcommitee will propose a
  revision in summer 2005
• This slide set will review the highlights of the
  existing benchmarks (but cannot provide full
  details please consult the official Medical
  Officer benchmarks document) and will present
  proposed revisions

5
Note relative weights are determined by CPO
committee and are identical across categories
6
Performance (Precept 1) Current
7
Education, training, and development (Precept
2) Current
8
Career progression and potential(Precept 3)
Current
9
Characteristics and Service to Corps(Precept 4)
Current
10
Precepts 5 and 6

• Readiness (precept 5), PY 2005 Details pending
  from OCCFM
• Assignment (precept 6), PY 2006 Recognizes and
  rewards isolated/hardship positions and similar
  positions, details pending from OCCFM

11
Proposed revisions to Physicians benchmarks

• Revised cover letter and revised benchmarks
  (presented on the following 14 slides) were
  generated by PPAC Benchmarks subcommittee, using
  many comments from the medical officers
  List-serv
• Approved by the full PPAC Nov 2004
• Submitted to the CPO committee Nov 2004
• Response was that changes for the category-
  specific precepts 2 and 3 were likely to
  approved for PY05
• As of May 2005, the PHS website provides only the
  PY04 Benchmarks

12
Cover letter comments proposed by the PPAC for
the PY05 benchmarks

• Four factors are denoted required promotion
  readiness, integrity/duty, professional degree,
  state medical licensure
• For all other factors, the descriptions of
  activities are examples of excellence and are not
  to be construed as requirements

13
Cover letter comments proposed by the PPAC for
the PY05 benchmarks

• The promotion board may identify similar
  activities that completely fulfill a given factor
• The promotion board may deem other activities to
  be lesser in quality or quantity and to
  constitute partial fulfillment of the factor
• The term value added should be dropped, since all
  but the required factors may be partially or
  completely fulfilled (partial fulfillment
  resulting in reduced precept score)

14
Cover letter comments proposed by the PPAC for
the PY05 benchmarks

• The relative weighting among the factors in
  determining the score for a precept is left to
  the discretion of the promotion board
• There is no time limit on performance of
  activities that fulfill a factor (e.g. activities
  from 5, 10, or 15 years ago are eligible for
  consideration)

15
Cover letter comments proposed by the PPAC for
the PY05 benchmarks

• The promotion board is urged to consider
• Existence of diverse career tracks, including
  clinicians, epidemiologists, researchers,
  regulatory officers, policy makers, and
  administrators
• Individuals in different career tracks will
  achieve excellence in different ways

16
Cover letter comments proposed by the PPAC for
the PY05 benchmarks

• The promotion board is urged to consider
  conflicting goals inherent in the promotion
  process
• Promote diversity of achievement PHS needs
  individuals with diverse education, training,
  skills, and achievement and PHS needs to elicit
  excellence from officers in diverse ways
• Ensure equality of opportunity achieving the
  highest level of performance for some factors may
  be a challenge for officers who face limitations
  due to agency mission or geographic location
• The promotion board is asked to take into
  account the officers assignments, past and
  present

17
Performance (Precept 1) Proposed
18
Performance (Precept 1) Proposed
19
Performance (Precept 1) Proposed
20
Education, training, and development (Precept
2) Proposed
21
Education, training, and development (Precept
2) Proposed
22
Career progression and potential(Precept 3)
Proposed
23
Career progression and potential(Precept 3)
Proposed
24
Characteristics and Service to Corps(Precept 4)
Proposed
25
Characteristics and Service to Corps(Precept 4)
Proposed
26
Some issues for discussion

• Can leadership be demonstrated only by committee
  service or can it be demonstrated also by written
  communications?
• Should CME be required for all officers, even if
  their state (e.g. New York) does not require it
  for licensure? What should the minimum number of
  hours be? How many years of documentation should
  be required? When can we reasonably impose a new
  requirement that requires documentation of past
  CME?
• Should there be formal tracks within the
  physician category? How might they be
  structured?
• - Clinician, researcher, regulator, manager
• - Generalist, specialist
• Should BOTC/IOTC be the only orientation course
  fulfilling the factor or should prior PHS
  orientation courses be acceptable?

27
More information

• PPAC home page http//usphs-ppac.org/
• 2004 Benchmarks
• Draft of PPAC proposal for 2005 benchmarks
• Tips for success with promotion boards
• Preparation of CV and sample CV from promoted
  officers
• Comments on benchmarks should be addressed to
  LCDR Rochelle Nolte - rnolte_at_tracencapemay.uscg.mi
  l

28
Jefferson Memorial at Dusk