All residents who are enrolled in programs leading to certification with either the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) or the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) are registered as postgraduate students in the School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences at Queen's University.
Residents carry out their training responsibilities within a hospital, or other clinical education site, at the appropriate level of training and in accordance with the relevant professional requirements and subject to university regulations and those of the hospital or other clinical education sites. The conditions governing the resident entering and remaining in the residency program are delineated in the School of Medicine, Queen’s University letter of appointment that is a legally binding contract.
Regular In-training Evaluation Reports (ITER) are mandated components of residency education and serve to document residents’ progress through programs. ITERs are institutional records of residents’ acquisition of the necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes required of independent practicing physicians. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Program Director with the Resident Program Committee (RPC) to collect and interpret assessment data about each resident enrolled in the program.
Residency programs will use a variety of assessment strategies that align with the characteristics being assessed (e.g., written, performance-based assessment, and direct observations, etc.) to generate assessment data that contribute to the completion of ITERs. Frequent assessment ensure performance strengths are acknowledged and weaknesses are identified in a timely manner to enable residents to adjust their learning strategies and successfully ameliorate them.
Residency programs must provide the respective College with a Final In-Training Evaluation Report (FITER) for each resident who has successfully completed the residency program. This report must represent the views of faculty members directly involved in the resident’s education and not be the opinion of a single assessor. It must reflect the final status of the resident and not an average of the resident’s performance over the entire residency program.
NOTE: Throughout this document the term ‘assessment’ is used in reference to resident learning with the exception of ‘In-Training Evaluation Reports’. The term ‘evaluation’ is reserved for reference to program evaluation activities (e.g., evaluation of teaching and rotations).
NOTE: Information about the Appeals Process is found in Section 14.0 of the Resident Assessment Process.
The purpose of this document is to:
- Describe the assessment process in place for all residency programs in the School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences at Queen's Universitty.
- Define the principles and guidelines of promotion, remediation, probation, suspension, withdrawal and appeals.
- Ensure that assessment practices are consistent with program goals and objectives of postgraduate medical education at Queen's University and meet the requirements of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and the College of Family Physicians of Canada.
Academic Review Board (ARB)
The ARB is a special committee responsible for hearing Level 2 appeals. Membership, including the designation of chair status is recommended by the Associate Dean, Postgraduate Medical Education and approved by the Vice-Dean Education. The ARB is responsible for making formal recommendations to the Associate Dean, Postgraduate Medical Education. (See Schedule D for Rules of Procedure.)
The academic year commences July 1 and finishes June 30. A resident may be out of phase and have a starting date other than July 1.
Associate Dean, Postgraduate Medical Education
Appointed by the Principal of Queen's University, is the senior faculty officer responsible for the overall conduct and supervision of postgraduate medical education within the faculty. The Associate Dean, Postgraduate Medical Education (PGME) reports to the Vice-Dean Education.
The clinical supervisor is the most responsible physician to whom a resident reports clinical problems during a given period of time (including the physician on call for a service, when a resident is on call).
College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC)
The body responsible for program accreditation, resident credentials and resident certification for Family Medicine education programs.
Dean, Faculty of Health Sciences
Appointed by the Principal of Queen's University, responsible for all activities of all the schools in the Faculty of Health Sciences.
Director of Resident Affairs
The Director of Resident Affairs provides assistance to residents who encounter personal and academic difficulties in their program and offers and/or arranges counselling in a confidential and welcoming environment.
Director, School of Medicine
Appointed by the Principal of Queen's University, responsible for all activities of the School of Medicine.
Education Advisory Board (EAB)
The EAB is a special committee responsible for assisting with academic planning for residents in need. Membership, including Designated and Deputy chairs status are recommended by the Associate Dean, Postgraduate Medical Education and approved by Vice-Dean Education. The EAB is convened at the request of the Associate Dean, Postgraduate Medical Education. The EAB must be convened to review all remediation and probationary plans for residents in academic difficulty. The EAB may also be called upon to assist Program Directors and Residency Program Committees in developing individualized educational plans for residents in need. (See Schedule C for Terms of Reference)
Refers to members of the School of Medicine in the Faculty of Health Sciences.
Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination Part II (MCCQE – PART II)
The Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination Part II is a three-hour Objective-Structured Clinical Examination that assesses the competence of candidates, specifically the knowledge, skills, and attitudes essential for medical licensure in Canada prior to entry into independent clinical practice. As this examination is an assessment of basic medical competence, residents at Queen’s School of Medicine must provide evidence of successfully completing the exam as criteria for promotion to postgraduate year four.
Postgraduate Medical Education Committee (PGMEC)
The PGMEC is the committee responsible for the conduct of postgraduate medical education.
The Postgraduate Tribunal is a special committee responsible for hearing Level 3 appeals. Designated and deputy chairs are appointed by the School of Medicine Academic Council. (See Schedule F for Rules of Procedure)
Surgical Foundations Examination (SFE)
The Surgical Foundations Examination is a two part multiple-choice exam covering topics outlined in the RCPSC Objectives of Surgical Foundations Training document. It may be written in the second year of surgical training and is part of the examination process leading to certification for some surgical specialties. This examination is an assessment of the foundational principles of surgery. Surgical residents at Queen’s School of Medicine requiring the SFE must provide evidence of successfully completing the exam as criteria for promotion to postgraduate year four.
An accredited Residency Training program in the School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences at Queen's University.
Defined by the RCPSC and CFPC as the university faculty member most responsible for the overall conduct of the residency program in a given discipline and responsible to the Head of the Department and to the Associate Dean for Postgraduate Medical Education at Queen's University.
The Program Director may delegate responsibility for resident activities at distributed sites.
Residency Program Committee (RPC)
The Residency Program Committee oversees the planning for the Residency Program and overall operation of the program to ensure that all requirements as defined by the national certifying colleges are met; this includes recruitment of residents, assessment of residents and on-going evaluations of the program including individual clinical supervisors.
A period of time a resident is assigned to a clinical or research service, for which there are specifically defined learning objectives. These periods of time may be in the form of block rotations, normally not shorter than 1 block and not longer than 6 blocks. Blocks are defined as four-week periods of time. The PGME academic year is composed of thirteen blocks, each of which commences on a Tuesday. Alternatively, a resident may be involved in a different curriculum model incorporating horizontal clinical or research experiences into longitudinal clinical experiences.
Faculty members who have direct responsibility for residents’ clinical academic program during a rotation, including the completion of assessment reports (ITERs).
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
The body responsible for program accreditation, resident credentials and resident certification for specialty education programs.
School of Medicine Academic Council
The School of Medicine Academic Council considers matters relevant to the School of Medicine and makes recommendation to the Faculty Board.
Appointed by the Principal of Queen's University, is responsible for all facets of medical education in the School of Medicine. The Vice-Dean Education reports to the Director, School of Medicine.
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada & the College of Family Physicians of Canada
The Colleges jointly define requirements in the revised ‘General Standards of Accreditation’.
The section dealing with resident evaluations is extracted below:
STANDARD B.6: EVALUATION OF RESIDENT PERFORMANCE
There must be mechanisms in place to ensure the systematic collection and interpretation of evaluation data on each resident enrolled in the program.
1. The in-training evaluation system must be based on the goals and objectives of the program and must clearly identify the methods by which residents are to be evaluated and the level of performance expected of residents in the achievement of these objectives.
2. Evaluation must meet the specific requirements of the specialty or subspecialty as set out in the RCPSC or CFPC standards of accreditation and be compatible with the characteristic being assessed.
2.1 The program must formally assess knowledge using appropriate written and performance-based assessment as well as direct observation.
2.2 Clinical skills must be assessed by direct observation and must be documented.
2.3 Attitudes and professionalism must be assessed by such means as interviews with peers, supervisors, allied health personnel, and patients and their families.
2.4 Communication abilities must be assessed by direct observation of resident interactions with patients and their families, and with colleagues, and by scrutiny of written communications to patients and colleagues, particularly referral or consultation letters where appropriate.
2.5 Collaborating abilities, including interpersonal skills in working with all members of the interprofessional team, including other physicians and health care professionals, must be assessed.
2.6 Teaching abilities must be assessed in multiple settings, including written student evaluations and by direct observation of the resident in seminars, lectures or case presentations.
2.7 In-training evaluations must include an understanding of issues related to age, gender, culture and ethnicity.
3. There must be honest, helpful and timely feedback provided to each resident. Documented feedback sessions must occur regularly, at least at the end of every rotation. A mid-rotation evaluation is recommended. There should also be regular feedback to residents on an informal basis.
3.1 Feedback sessions to residents must include face-to-face meetings as an essential part of resident evaluation.
4. Residents must be informed when serious concerns exist and given opportunity to correct their performance.
5. The program must provide the respective College with a document for each resident who has successfully completed the residency program. This report must represent the views of faculty members directly involved in the residents’ education and not be the opinion of a single evaluator. It must reflect the final status of the resident and not be an average of the entire residency.
1.0 Overview of Assessment Process
1.1 At the beginning of each rotation, or horizontal learning experience, the Rotation Supervisor(s) or delegate must ensure the resident is provided with:
- Learning objectives for the rotation
- List of duties, responsibilities, and expectations
- A description of assessment strategies
- A description of the structure of relationships within the health care team
- A description of the resident’s role in that health care team
In cases where the provision of above is done through email, a copy of the email should be included in the resident’s file.
1.2 Regular and timely feedback must occur throughout the rotation or horizontal learning experience.
1.3 Residents must be made aware of any concerns as these emerge over the course of the rotation or horizontal learning experience to provide opportunity for correction.
1.4 ITERs must be completed at regular intervals, at minimum at the end of each rotation or after 4 months/blocks of a horizontal learning experience.
1.5 Preparation of all assessment reports is the professional responsibility of the Rotation Supervisor(s) or delegate.
1.6 Documented mid-rotation assessments (ITER-mid) are strongly recommended for all residents.
1.7 An end of rotation assessment (ITER-end) must be documented and discussed with the resident. This feedback must be timely, and should normally occur within 1 month of completion of the rotation.
1.8 It is strongly recommended that residents be provided the opportunity to self-assess prior to arriving at End of Rotation Assessment meetings.
1.9 Completion of ITERs must be based on documented observations of resident performance.
1.10 Assessments of residents’ on-going progress in the program are the joint responsibility of the Program Director and the Residency Program Committee (RPC) and the assessment of residents must be a regular agenda item for RPC meetings.
2.0 Documentation of Assessments
2.1 Standardized assessment terminology must be used on all ITERs.
2.2 Completion of the narrative section of ITERs is strongly recommended.
2.3 Completion of the narrative section of ITERs is mandatory in cases when global performance ratings of “Does not meet expectations” are awarded.
2.4 ITERs must include the signature of the resident and the Rotation Supervisor. The resident's signature indicates only that the resident has read the report.
2.5 The resident may append a note indicating that he/she disagrees with the assessment documented in an ITER.
2.6 If the ITER is not signed, an explanatory note must be appended.
2.7 The resident shares responsibility with the Program Director for ensuring that ITERs are completed in a timely fashion, that he/she has received feedback and has signed the ITER.
2.8 Copies of ITERs and FITERs are retained in a database managed by the Postgraduate Medical Education office.
3.1 ITER forms are confidential documents. Access is normally restricted to the Program Director or delegate, the RPC, the Associate Dean, PGME or delegate, and the resident him/herself.
3.2 ITER forms are for purposes of progress and promotion, except in the case of university appeals, Royal College or CFPC proceedings or appeals, CPSO proceedings, or required pursuant to legal process.
4.0 Sharing of Performance Data
4.1 Assessment information can be shared to meet the educational needs of residents.
5.0 Rating Scales on In-Training Evaluation Reports
Two areas on In-Training Evaluation Reports (ITERs) require the use of rating scales when recording resident performance. The first lists educational objectives for the specific rotation and the second provides space to document the global performance assessment.
5.1 End of Rotation ITER (ITER-end)
Resident training programs may adopt either a 2 or 4-point rating scales for educational objectives in the body of In-Training Evaluation Reports (ITER-end):
2 POINT RATING SCALE (ITER-END)
4 POINT RATING SCALE (ITER-END)
Does not meet Expectations
Inconsistently meets Expectations
Does not meet Expectations
Where “Inconsistently meets Expectations” is used to describe: A resident’s pattern of performance that is irregular over the course of an entire rotation (e.g., meets expectation on some occasions and not at others). A normal pattern of performance would see this irregularity diminish overtime. However, should this inconsistent pattern persist throughout the duration of a rotation with no evidence of improvement that resident’s performance would be described as “Inconsistently meets Expectations”.
5.2 Global Performance Ratings
The following 2-point rating scale must be used for global performance ratings on all End of Rotation In-Training Evaluation Reports (ITER-end):
END OF ROTATION EVALUATION (ITER-END)
Does not meet Expectations
5.3 Mid-Rotation ITER Rating Scales (ITER-MID)
The following 2-point rating scale must be used for educational objectives (body of ITER-mid) and Global Performance ratings in Mid-Rotation ITERs:
2 POINT RATING SCALE (ITER-MID)
Progressing as expected
6.0 Annual Promotion Process
6.1 The Program Director or delegate must conduct an annual progress review with each resident.
6.2 The Program Director or delegate and resident should review all relevant assessment data (e.g., ITERs, OSCE results, multisource feedback, etc) and discuss patterns of strengths and weaknesses that emerge and strategies for improvement. Career counseling may also be discussed.
6.3 Resident progress is reported to RPC.
6.4 The RPC must review the files of all residents whose performance is not meeting expectations and forward a request to the Associate Dean, PGME to convene the Education Advisory Board to review these files.
6.5 Promotion of a resident to the next academic level occurs when:
6.5.1 All rotation periods during the academic year have been completed with ITER global performance ratings of “Meets Expectations”.
6.5.2 Additional criteria for promotion as stipulated by individual programs have been met including, but not limited to:
188.8.131.52a Documentation of passing the MCCQE – Part II for promotion to PGY4 level (applicable to incoming residents as of 2013).
184.108.40.206b Documentation of passing the MCCQE – Part II for promotion to PGY5 level for medical subspecialty residents matching to our programs at the PGY4 level (applicable to incoming residents as of 2013).
220.127.116.11 Documentation of passing the SFE for surgical residents requiring the SFE for certification as a criterion for promotion to PGY4 level (applicable to incoming residents as of 2013).
6.6 Under extenuating circumstances the Program Director and RPC have the discretion to waive criteria for promotion.
6.7 The decision to recommend promotion of residents to the Associate Dean, PGME will be made by the Program Director or delegate and the RPC.
7.0 Satisfactory Assessment
7.1 A satisfactory assessment is defined as any ITER having a global performance rating of “Meets Expectations”.
8.0 Incomplete Rotations
8.1 In order to meet pedagogical requirements, a resident should not miss more than 1/4 of a rotation or horizontal learning experience due to illness, leave, holidays etc.
8.2 A rotation or horizontal learning experience that includes less than 3/4 of the expected time commitment may be considered incomplete.
8.3 An incomplete rotation or horizontal learning experience should be completed, the duration of which is determined by the nature of the experience and the need for continuity of the clinical experience.
8.4 For any clinical rotation or horizontal learning experience, the Program Director or delegate in consultation with the Rotation Supervisor will determine whether or not the duration of a resident’s learning experience was sufficient to support meaningful assessment.
9.0 Unsatisfactory Assessment
9.1 An unsatisfactory assessment is defined as an ITER having a global performance rating of “Does not meet expectations”.
9.2 When a resident receives an unsatisfactory assessment the Program Director will report the occurrence to the RPC and advise the Associate Dean, PGME.
9.3 The Associate Dean, Postgraduate Medical Education will convene the Education Advisory Board (EAB) to review the file of the resident in academic difficulty and the draft remediation plan.
9.4 An unsatisfactory assessment will result in (a) a repeat of the rotation or (b) completion of a period of remediation (see item 10.0 below), or (c) may result in a probationary period (see 11.0 below).
9.5 In exceptional circumstances, the EAB may recommend that none of the options listed in item 9.4 apply.
10.1 Remediation is designed to assist the resident in addressing identified weaknesses and correcting his/her deficiencies.
10.2 A remediation plan must address all of the following elements (see Schedule A for Remediation Template):
- Identified areas of weakness requiring remediation and assessment strategies that will be used to document performance.
- The location and duration of the remediation period.
- Expected outcomes of the remediation period.
- Consequences of the successful completion or failure of the remediation period.
10.2.1 The draft remediation plan is developed by the Program Director in consultation with the RPC and reviewed with the resident.
10.2.2 The Associate Dean, PGME must be advised when there is a plan to place a resident on remediation and a copy of the draft remediation plan and complete resident file forwarded to the PGME office for review by the EAB.
10.2.3 The EAB will review the complete resident file and forward recommendations relating to (a) the process by which the need for remediation was determined, and (b) the quality of the proposed remediation plan to the RPC and Associate Dean, PGME.
10.2.4 The final remediation plan must be approved by the RPC and signed by the Program Director and resident.
10.2.5 A copy of the signed remediation plan must be forwarded to the PGME office.
10.2.6 The RPC will review all relevant documentation to determine the outcome of a remediation period (pass/fail).
10.2.7 The Associate Dean, PGME must be advised of the outcome of the remediation.
10.3 During a remediation, any leaves of absence and all holiday requests must be approved by the Program Director.
10.4 Upon the successful completion of a remediation, the resident will be given academic credit and will continue in the residency program out of phase.
10.5 A failed remediation period shall require the resident to proceed to a probation period.
10. 6 A resident may be remediated only twice during his/her residency, if identified as in need of remediation a third time he/she shall be placed on probation.
10.7 A resident who fails a remediation after a previous probation will be required to withdraw.
11.1 A probationary period is designed to assess specific aspects of resident performance.
11.2 A resident will be placed on probation for any of the following reasons:
11.2.1 A failed remediation period.
11.2.2 Identified for the third time as in need of remediation.
11.2.3 Upon recommendation of the RPC and/or the Program Director for any reason pertaining to academic progress or clinical skills which is unsatisfactory, or any serious issues relating to professionalism or absence from the program.
11.2.4 Upon recommendation of the Associate Dean, PGME, for any reason pertaining to academic progress or clinical skills which is unsatisfactory, or any serious issues relating to professionalism or absence from the program.
11.3 A Probation plan must address all of the following elements (see Schedule B for Probation Template):
- Identified areas of weakness requiring probation and assessment strategies that will be used to document performance
- The location and duration of the probationary program
- Expected outcomes of the probationary program
- Consequences of the successful completion or failure of the probationary program
11.3.1 The draft probation plan is developed by the Program Director in consultation with the RPC and reviewed with the resident.
11.3.2 The Associate Dean, PGME must be advised when a resident is placed on probation and a copy of the draft probationary plan and complete resident file forwarded to the PGME office for review by the EAB.
11.3.3 The PGME office must advise hospital administration and The College of Physicians and Surgeon of Ontario when a resident is placed on probation.
11.3.4 The EAB will review the complete resident file and forward recommendations relating to (a) the process by which the need for probation was determined, and (b) the quality of the proposed probationary plan to the RPC and Associate Dean, PGME.
11.3.5 The final version of probationary plan must be approved by the RPC and signed by the Program Director and resident.
11.3.6 A copy of the final version of probationary plan must be forwarded to the PGME office.
11.3.7 The RPC will review all relevant documentation to determine the outcome of a probationary period (pass/fail).
11.3.8 The RPC must advise the Associate Dean, PGME of the outcome of the probation.
11.3.9 The PGME office must advise hospital administration and The College of Physicians and Surgeon of Ontario of the outcome of the probation.
11.4 Duration and progress in training
11.4.1 A resident may be on probation for a period of up to one academic year subsequent to the commencement of the probation.
11.4.2 The probationary period may or may not count towards the duration of training required for certification by the relevant credentialing College.
11.4.3 Continuation in the residency will depend upon successful completion of the probationary period.
11.5 Probationary Period
11.5.1 During a probationary period any leaves of absence and all holiday requests must be approved by the Program Director.
11.5.2 Subject to 11.5.3, the resident who successfully completes a probationary period will not be awarded academic credit for the successful probationary period and will continue in the residency program out of phase.
11.5.3 Under exceptional circumstances, the RPC may recommend that academic credit be awarded for a probationary period. This recommendation is subject to approval by the Associate Dean, PGME.
11.5.4 A failed probationary period shall require the resident to withdraw from Queen’s School of Medicine.
11.6 Further Probation during a residency
11.6.1 A resident may be placed on probation on only one occasion during his/her residency.
11.6.2 The requirement to withdraw applies even when a resident changes from one Program to another Program.
12.1.1 A Program Director may request of the Associate Dean that a resident be suspended when the following conditions are suspected:
- Patient care and/or safety are jeopardized,
- Substance abuse,
- Inappropriate patient/physician interactions,
- Unethical behaviour,
- Unprofessional conduct,
- Criminal activity.
12.1.2 The process for dealing with Suspensions arising due to criminal activity is detailed in the Faculty of Health Science Police Records Check Policy Document, available on-line at: http://meds.queensu.ca/postgraduate/policies/prc
12.2 If the Associate Dean, PGME is of the opinion that the circumstances so require, the Associate Dean, PGME will notify the resident that he/she is suspended with pay, pending an urgent investigation.
12.2.1 The PGME office must advise hospital administration and The College of Physicians and Surgeon of Ontario when a resident is suspended.
12.2.2 The Associate Dean, PGME convenes the Academic Review Board (ARB) to conduct an investigation which will include a review of the resident's academic record, interviews with anyone with information relevant to the investigation, a meeting with the Program Director and Resident to discuss the concerns.
12.2.3 The ARB reports the finding of its investigation and its recommendation(s) regarding the resident's on going status in the program to the Associate Dean, PGME
12.2.4 The resident will be notified of the outcome of the investigation in writing, by the Associate Dean, PGME.
12.2.5 The PGME office must advise hospital administration and The College of Physicians and Surgeon of Ontario of the outcome of the investigation.
12.3 The Associate Dean, PGME will decide whether to:
- remove the suspension with or without conditions
- continue the suspension for a period of time with or without conditions
- recommend to the Dean that the resident be required to withdraw
12.4 The resident may appeal the decision of the Associate Dean, PGME to the Postgraduate Appeals Tribunal as a Level 3 appeal
13.0 Requirement to Withdraw
13.1 The events leading to a requirement to withdraw include:
13.1.1 A failed probationary period
13.1.2 A failed remediation after a previous probationary period
13.1.3 Failed AVP
13.1.4 Findings of behavior in which in the opinion of the Associate Dean, PGME:
- Patient care and safety are jeopardized,
- Substance abuse,
- There is inappropriate patient/physician interaction,
- There is unethical behaviour,
- There is unprofessional conduct,
- Criminal Activity.
13.2 The PGME office must advise hospital administration and The College of Physicians and Surgeon of Ontario, and either the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons or the College of Family Physicians of Canada when a resident is required to withdraw.
14.0 Appeals Process
14.1 Appeals concerning the service component and other areas as outlined in the PARO-CAHO contract should be directed through the Professional Association of Residents of Ontario.
14.2.1 Avenues of appeal about academic decisions regarding the following situations:
- Unsatisfactory assessment (ITER)
- Repeat Rotation
- Annual Promotion
- Suspension in an urgent situation
- Requirement to withdraw
are described in 14.3 – 18.
14.3 The grounds of appeal must be based on extenuating circumstances or procedural flaws. Academic judgments are not subject to appeal.
14.4 Route for Academic Appeal
14.4.1 There will be an emphasis on informal resolution.
14.4.2 The route of appeal should be to the entity above the decision maker.
14.4.3 The following are the entities to whom appeals may be taken depending on the circumstances:
|Level 1||Residency Program Committee|
|Level 2||Associate Dean, PGME, or Delegate: Academic Review Board|
|Level 3||Dean, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University or Delegate|
15.0 Notice of Appeal
15.1 In proceeding with any routes of appeal, notice of appeal must be given to the appropriate person or group in writing within 15 business days of the decision that is being appealed.
15.2 The recipient of the notice of appeal must respond in writing within 15 business days of the receipt of the notice of appeal.
16.0 Appeal Process at Level 1
16.1 Appeals from a requirement to repeat a rotation, complete a remediation or probationary period will be directed to the RPC.
16.2 The Level 1 appeal process will follow the guidelines attached as Schedule D.
16.3 The appeal will be heard in confidence by the RPC.
16.4 The resident may be accompanied by an advisor.
16.5 The RPC may grant or deny the appeal with or without conditions.
17.0 Appeal Process at Level 2
17.1 Upon the receipt of a written appeal from a resident from the decision of RPC, or a requirement to withdraw for academic reasons, the Associate Dean, PGME Postgraduate Medical Education will convene the Academic Review Board (ARB)
17.2 The Level 2 appeal process will follow the Rules of Procedure attached as Schedule E.
17.3 The appeal will be heard in confidence by the ARB.
17.4 The resident may be accompanied by an advisor.
17.5 The ARB makes a recommendation to the Associate Dean, PGME about whether to deny or grant the appeal with or without conditions. The Associate Dean makes the final decision.
18.0 Appeals Process at Level 3
18.1 A resident may submit a Level 3 appeal to the Dean, Faculty of Health Sciences, from a decision of the Associate Dean, PGME denying a Level 2 appeal or decisions of the Associate Dean, PGME described in 12.3 or 13.1.2. The resident must submit the appeal within 15 business daysafter being advised of the Level 2 decision or the decision of the Associate Dean, PGME.
18.2 The Dean shall arrange for a final hearing to be held in accordance with the Postgraduate Tribunal (the Tribunal) procedures. Attached as Schedule F are the rules governing a Level 3 appeal and the jurisdiction and composition of the Tribunal.
18.3 The Tribunal shall make one of the following decisions:
a. To grant the appeal in whole or in part, with or without conditions;
b. To deny the appeal
19.0 Access to Documents
19.1 At all levels of appeal, the decision makers will have access to the resident’s file, ITERS and other relevant documents and reports including without limitation:
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario-Licensing Standards
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada-Standards of Accreditation
20.0 Program Evaluation
20.1 It is the Program Directors responsibility to ensure all residents are afforded the opportunity of providing an evaluation of the rotation and their supervisors.
20.2 Each program must develop a process for program evaluation that safe guards resident confidentially.
20.3 Residents' evaluation of the program must be a regular agenda item for RPC meeting.
21.0 Policy Approval and Renewal
21.1 This document will be approved in its entirety by:
- Postgraduate Medical Education Committee
- The School of Medicine Academic Council
- Faculty Board for the Faculty of Health Sciences
21.2 This document will be reviewed and updated on an annual basis by the PGMEC
PGME Assessment, Promotion, & Appeals Policy (Revised March, 2012)
Last approved by:
Postgraduate Medical Education Committee, June 11, 2010
School of Medicine Executive Committee, January 18, 2011 (dissolved)
School of Medicine Academic Council, January 18, 2011
Faculty Board for the Faculty of Health Sciences
Postgraduate Medical Education Committee (carried March 21st 2012)
The School of Medicine Academic Council (carried May 15th 2012)
Faculty Board for the Faculty of Health Sciences (carried June 13th 2012, with Vice-Dean Medical Education title changed to Vice-Dean Education)
Queen’s University Senate (to be submitted to Senate for September 2012 meeting)
|Schedule / Form||Title||Last Updated|
|Schedule A||Remediation Plan||2016|
|Schedule B||Probationary Plan||2016|
|Schedule C||PGME Education Advisory Board - Terms of Reference||2017|
|Schedule D||PGME Procedural Guidelines for Level 1 Appeals||August 2012|
|Schedule E||PGME Level 2 Appeals: Academic Review Board Rules of Procedure||July 2014|
|Schedule F||PGME Level 3 Appeals: Postgraduate Tribunal Rules of Procedure||May 2014|
|Form A||Notice of Appeal: Postgraduate Tribunal||April 2013|
|Form B||Response: Postgraduate Tribunal||April 2013|
|Form C||Confidentiality Agreement||April 2013|