This page provides details on the documents that are required for a Continuing Faculty Appointment Review (CFAR).
All questions regarding CFAR should be addressed to email@example.com.
The following documents are required for the CFAR process:
- Shared documentation – that is, documents that are required of all faculty members undergoing review irrespective of their rank or academic position description (see below)
- Academic position description specific documents (see below)
- Teaching evaluations – clerkship and POWER data is collected by the department and placed in the candidates Sharefile. Candidates are to collect their own pre-clerkship data
- Detailed written evaluations of the faculty member’s performance from the candidate’s physician-in-chief (PIC) and departmental division director (DDD) (obtained by the department directly)
For questions regarding the CFAR process, documentation, or accessing your CFAR Sharefile folder, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
All candidates must complete and upload to their Sharefile folder the following:
- The CFAR Cover Letter
- An up to date Curriculum Vitae for the time period from year of initial appointment
- Papers in preparation may be included once the WebCV report is run
- All candidates must include a Teaching Philosophy / Statement in their CV
- A Teaching & Education Report (TER)
- This report is generated by WebCV
- It will also include the Teaching Philosophy/Statement. It is fine for it to appear twice, both here and in the CV Report
- Teaching Data Summary Table
- This report is generated by WebCV
- The TES Numbers must be input manually
- All teaching evaluations since initial appointment
- Pre-clerkship evaluations must be provided by the candidate
- All clerkship and POWER Teaching Evaluations are collected by the department and shared with the candidate, PIC and DDD
- Up to five (5) pages of appendices
- To provide any relevant additional documentation of teaching effectiveness or scholarship that is not already included in above
- Candidates may NOT include letters of reference or testimonials, emails or personal communications, or any documents containing patients’ personal health identifiers
|Clinician-teacher||Optional Creative Professional Activity (CPA) Statement (CPA contributions should be integrated into the CV)|
Clinician in quality & innovation
|CPA statement and CPA contributions integrated into CV required|
|Clinician-educator||Research Statement, Refereed Publication Summary and/or CPA statement required (CPA contributions should be integrated into the CV)|
|Clinician-investigator & Clinician-scientist||
Research Statement, Refereed Publication Summary, Research Awards Data Summary reports, and an ORCID ID or Google Scholar page link are required. CPA statement is optional; CPA contributions should be integrated into the CV.
If the candidate has five or fewer publications then the ‘five most significant publications’ section should be removed.
All documents other than appendices must be in one of the following usable file formats: .pdf, .rtf, or .doc. Scanned images are not admissible; appendices cannot exceed five pages.
Inclusion of CPA
As mentioned, the separate WebCV export called the ‘CPA Report’ will not be accepted as part of a candidate’s package. CPA contributions must be integrated into the ‘CV Report.’ The CPA section of a candidate’s WebCV is expected to only contain the CPA Statement. All other items that count as CPA should be integrated elsewhere in the CV and may be referenced in the CPA Statement. Ensuring that there is no duplication of items within the CPA section can either involve removing the ‘Include in CPA’ check from check boxes or simply deleting that section of the CV once the .rtf file has been generated.
If a significant paper is accepted for publication between the time of document submission – February 19th, 2018 – and the review meeting approximately one month later then candidates are requested to email email@example.com to have a note passed along to the reviewers.
Candidates are expected to include the impact factors of the journals where their articles are published. The committee recognizes this can be a confusing number. In general, the annual impact factor for the year in which the article appeared should be used, but any recent appropriate impact factor for the journal is acceptable.