Office of Faculty Affairs

Medical School

Clinician Track

Clinical excellence is central to the University of Minnesota’s land-grant mission to improve the lives of all Minnesotans. All three aspects of our purpose—education, clinical practice and research—are critical to the wellbeing and reputation of the Medical School. The clinician track is a unique way to be promoted, prompting a specialized set of processes and procedures for the faculty review.

Dossiers for the 2022-23 review period can begin being submitted on September 15, 2022. The final due date for dossiers is February 1, 2023. 

As part of the promotion process on CT, we are asking for a set of evaluators (14-19) who are familiar with the candidate’s clinical work to evaluate them based on the ACGME list of clinical competencies (referenced in the CT statement).

Clinician Track and Departmental Criteria Statements

Resources, Policies, and Procedures

Forms and Templates

Medical School Curriculum Vitae Templates - Required for all Dossiers

  • Metrics Resources
  • External Review Resources
  • Sample Letters
  • Peer Review Resources

  • Metrics Resources

  • External Review Resources

    External reviews play a critical part in the review process for promotion. Please consider the following as reviews are solicited:

    • A minimum of four arms-length letters are to submitted with each promotion dossier. To minimize service expectations for ourselves and our colleagues, please consider how many letters your unit needs to make a reasonable judgment in the review process. In general, including more than seven letters provides little additional value to the process, though there may be circumstances where that is warranted (such as with an interdisciplinary scholar, for example).
    • Include a clear description of the reviewer’s relationship to the candidate.
    • Do not ask external reviewers to compare the candidate to others in the field. Faculty members have different experiences and comparing faculty without knowing of those experiences can lead to an unfair process. Please focus on the individual's accomplishments and contributions to the field as they relate to their track statement.
    • Do not ask reviewers to comment on whether or not the candidate would likely be tenured at their institution, as institutional expectations vary greatly.
    • Do not ask reviewers to comment on teaching unless evidence is provided for them to assess. If teaching evidence is submitted, make sure to include evidence beyond SRTs.

  • Sample Letters

  • Peer Review Resources

Clinician Track Promotion Committee