Child pages
  • Responses to ECFMG Suggestions
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

From Mike Dugan, FSMB, regarding license profession and jurisdiction elements:

I appreciate your reaching out regarding this proposed change. Cyndi Streun and I have discussed the change and we support making the change to the standard. I would also point out that our systems will be able to support this field going forward.

From AAMC, regarding Academic Appointment data

Here are our comments on the proposed changes. 

Paul Jolly’s comments:

Academic Appointment has all of the detail we would like for faculty, including chairs and division and section chiefs.  I think there is merit in distinguishing academic appointment from occupation.  A typical clinical faculty member may have both.  He or she may be professor of pediatrics, but also a practicing neonatologist.  He or she may even be in different specialties completely, especially for MD/PhD faculty.  For example, Chair of Biochemistry but also a practicing Gastroenterologist.  Separate occupation information may also be appropriate for basic scientists who hold positions in related or unrelated outside research organizations.  The statement, “An appointment may be described using both AcademicAppointment and OccupationInfo if desired.” is somewhat misleading.  I don’t take it to mean that “faculty member” can be an occupation described by OccupationInfo.  I think it should say instead “A member may have both an academic appointment and a (non-academic) occupation.”

I agree that a chair appointment and a division or section chief appointment have much in common and could be combined.  These are special faculty appointments for academic disciplinary leaders.

Academic administrative appointments are not faculty appointments.  They don’t have titles like Chair or Chief.  Indeed, the titles have so much variation from one school to another that it makes little sense to try to list all the possibilities.  I think it is better to keep these separate as well.

I don’t understand the stated rationale for elevating “term” to its own element, but I agree that it may make sense to do so.

Hershel Alexander’s comments

You are correct academic information and occupation information need to be kept separate. The occupation information is to capture an person’s employment outside of academia. While you note employment outside academic as a practicing physician, a person could hold nonphysician positions as well.

Chairs and division/section chiefs strike me as distinct kinds of appointments—I would recommend that they remain separate.  Moreover, a term value (i.e., interim, acting, or permanent) should be tied to each chair appointment or chief appointment. The rationale for raising term to its own element is not clear, but the relationship of term to chair appointments and to chief appointments should remain.

 

 

  • No labels