PRiSM

• PRiSM includes storage of prior years’ performance reviews and supporting documents, and faculty members can automatically import and update information from the prior year.     

• PRiSM includes real-time dashboards, so that departmental administrators can track the progress and ensure timely completion of all reviews.   

• PRiSM includes direct links to enable faculty members to edit and update their CU Medicine profile.  

• Separate versions of PRiSM have been created to enable the Dean to conduct annual evaluations of the department chairs and other school leaders.   

• PRiSM also includes required “attestation check boxes,” whereby faculty members affirm their understanding of, and compliance with, various School of Medicine policies pertaining to professionalism, respect for learners, management of gift accounts and conflicts-of-interest.  Links to key documents are provided.    

Importantly, PRiSM is designed to facilitate, but not replace, annual conversations between the faculty member and their supervisor.  As noted above, faculty members are encouraged to highlight current challenges and resource needs, including needs for mentoring, space, administrative support or specialized training.  PRiSM provides fields so that the chair and other supervisors can provide feedback, assess the faculty member’s progress toward promotion and assign an overall performance rating (as required under Colorado law).  PRiSM also includes questions about community collaborations, community-based participatory research, advocacy, and pipeline, recruitment and mentoring activities.   

For the past eight years, PRiSM has been implemented successfully with almost 100 percent compliance.  PRiSM has also helped the School of Medicine meet two important goals: First, ensuring efficiency, consistency and accountability in annual faculty performance reviews; and, second, helping to establish an appreciative culture that promotes faculty and institutional excellence, through performance reviews, goal setting and constructive feedback.  In accomplishing these goals, PRiSM has also saved time for faculty members and their chairs and has helped the institution meet regulatory requirements, including providing data for individual departmental reviews and LCME accreditation.  

This PRiSM guide is an update to our 2022 guide.  It includes tips to help chairs and other reviewers ask faculty members about their needs in other areas, such as wellness, resilience, whether they feel their career is “on track,” whether they feel valued and supported in the department, and whether their work currently has meaning and purpose.  

This guide also includes reminders for faculty members who are being reviewed about negotiating for needed resources (for example, mentoring, space, training and administrative support) and about accepting criticism as well as praise, acknowledging shortcomings and moving forward with a “growth mindset.”  

PRiSM is the platform used by CUSOM faculty members to prepare and route their annual performance evaluations for review.  PRiSM allows faculty members to update their teaching, research, clinical, service, and community outreach accomplishments. There are also sections to capture publications, grants, patents, and honors and awards.  Most medical student teaching evaluations are uploaded automatically and are stored in PRiSM. 

All full-time (> 0.5 FTE) School of Medicine faculty members employed by the University of Colorado or Denver Health are required to complete an annual review using PRiSM.  At the conclusion of the annual review, University-employed faculty members receive an overall performance rating (Outstanding, Exceeding Expectations, Meeting Expectations, Below Expectations or Not Meeting Expectations), as described below.   

The deadline for completing annual performance reviews is March 1st  following the calendar year of the review. 

Performance reviews should be more than a “grading exercise.”  They have a broader purpose than simply assigning (and receiving) a “rating.”  Indeed, as highlighted in earlier sections, performance reviews can accomplish much more than ensuring that faculty members are fulfilling their assigned responsibilities.  Well-done performance reviews can also help all of us:  

• Identify our strengths, as well as our shortcomings; 

• Affirm (or modify) our academic and professional goals; 

• Communicate the resources we need (for example, administrative support, mentoring, coaching, space, time, wellness resources, or additional training);  

• Determine whether our work has meaning and purpose, and whether our career feels like it is “on track;” and 

• Move forward in our careers, with renewed momentum and optimism.   

Here are some strategies to help you get the most out of your performance review: 

• Throughout the year (not only at the time of annual review), update your “mission statement” and professional goals, and document your accomplishments. Keeping an up-to-date CV can be extremely helpful for keeping track of your accomplishments. 

• When you prepare your PRiSM review, be sure to include your professional plan for the next 1-5 years.  Faculty professional plans should contain concrete goals, timelines and measurable outcomes (“deliverables”).  Examples: Submit grant to NIH by September 30th; complete interprofessional pathway for stroke management by the end of the year; submit manuscript on resident resilience and wellness by June 1st; prepare 3 new bench-to-bedside lectures for residents and fellows for the Spring semester; develop 3 new grant-writing workshop and implement by July 30th; revise healthcare humanities curriculum and submit to MedEdPORTAL by June 30th.          

• Think about (and describe in PRiSM) the ways in which you add value to your department, to the clinical or research institutions where you work, and to the learning environment.  When it comes to the ways you may be adding value, think beyond your formal job description; “adding value” can include the different ways you promote the missions of your department and the institution, your community outreach and collaborations, and the support or mentorship you provide regularly to learners, co-workers and peers. 

• For most faculty members, it is also appropriate to address how you are doing regarding expectations of your job. For example, if you are an educator, including information on learner evaluations. If your job responsibilities needs updating, this is often a good time to discuss revising it with your supervisor. 

• During the reviews, be explicit about the support or resources that you need in order to achieve success (for example, administrative support, mentoring, coaching, space, time, wellness resources or additional training). 

• Sometimes one meeting is not sufficient to discuss all that may be on your or the reviewer’s agenda. If that’s the case, be willing to take the initiative to  schedule follow-up meeting(s).   

• As you think about what you hope to gain from the review, also consider ways that you can perform at an even higher level and augment your impact.   

• Professional growth does not happen just during the annual performance review.  Therefore, don’t assume that the review and attendant conversation must be limited to a once-a-year meeting.  Instead, meet with your chair or designated reviewer regularly, and talk about your accomplishments, challenges and goals.  Frequent check-ins allow you to course-correct and avoid surprises, and also to consider new ideas for career growth and success.  The annual check-in is critical, but it is also important to ask for, and receive, more frequent feedback.  

• We are all likely to receive some feedback that is disappointing; indeed, annual reviews are about accepting criticism as well as praise, acknowledging our shortcomings, and moving forward with a “growth mindset.”  If you receive feedback that is disappointing, ask for a clear description of what was expected of you, and how you fell short of meeting those expectations. This may also be a good opportunity to talk to a trusted mentor to get another perspective, or even think about challenging the feedback you received.   

• Remember that “meeting expectations” is not a failure, and it may be the right goal for you, based on your career goals and priorities (including your wellbeing).   Whether the review is reassuring or disappointing, be sure to point out, without hesitation, any areas where the information considered in the review (including the overall rating) appears to be incomplete, unfair, biased or arbitrary.  Faculty members who feel their review of Below Expectations or Fails to Meet Expectations is unfair can appeal their assigned rating.  

Your Performance Rating 

• In addition to reviewing the faculty member’s performance during the prior year, be sure to review their professional plans for the next 1-5 years.  Faculty members’ professional plans should contain concrete goals, timelines and measurable outcomes (“deliverables”). 

• If the faculty member has various sources of funding or roles outside the department, reach out to those supervisors to elicit feedback for the review. PRiSM includes a field that can capture feedback regarding a faculty member’s performance (successes and ongoing challenges) as a clinical, research or training program director, when working outside the primary department.   

• Additionally, the most effective reviews should include solicitation and review of feedback from multiple sources. For example, this may be from teaching evaluations, patient and staff feedback, and/or 360 reviews. 

• Review the faculty member’s activities and accomplishments in each area (teaching, clinical service, scholarship, service, community engagement and advocacy, and professionalism).  Ask about their efforts to support a work environment and culture of inclusivity.  Although there will only be a single, overall performance rating, try to provide specific comments in each relevant area. 

• The annual PRiSM review also affords an opportunity to review and update the faculty member’s job responsibilities, or to create a job responsibilities document if none exists.  If you need additional information from the faculty member, remember that you can send the PRiSM documents back to them to make edits before you  complete your final review. 

• There shouldn’t be any surprises.  Ideally, if a faculty member has struggled or performed poorly in one or more areas, there have already been meetings and discussions, where shortcomings have been addressed and expectations clarified. Wherever possible, provide timely and actionable feedback.  Apart from reviewing the faculty member’s performance, be sure to encourage a broader discussion.  Consider asking about their resource needs, and whether their expectations of the department are being met.   

• As a way to inquire (indirectly) about the individual’s sense of wellness, ask about the things that are known to drive satisfaction and well-being.  For example, consider these or similar questions: 2 

• What is the most meaningful part of your job?  

• Do you feel you have the autonomy to do things that are meaningful and give you a sense of purpose?   

• Is there anything I can do to support you so you are able to spend more time on things that are meaningful or give you a sense of purpose?  

• Focusing on “systems” challenges, what is one pebble in your shoe that, if removed, would make the largest impact on your professional fulfillment?  

• With the pandemic and other world events over the past several years, lead with empathy, and acknowledge, even if you don’t inquire about details, that many faculty members have faced unprecedented personal and professional challenges --- working from home, childcare, caring for older relatives, isolation, microaggressions or other stresses.  In doing this, be sure to respect their privacy and only discuss what the faculty member wishes to share.   

• Even if some previously established goals have not been met, be sure to acknowledge the faculty member’s other strengths and accomplishments, such as flexibility, teamwork, a positive attitude, a growth mindset, initiative, and willingness to help others. In other words, acknowledge and document the different ways they add value to the department.   

• In the spirit of a just culture, be aware of power dynamics that may exist between you and your faculty member, and also with respect to those who may be giving you feedback about the faculty member.  Power dynamics may arise from differences in our formal positions, or they may stem from a person's many identities or life experiences.   

• Stay optimistic, and encourage the faculty member to be optimistic, too.  Talk about what success for the faculty member will look like.  This is a perfect time to tell them, We got this, together.

Assigning Performance Ratings 

• The deadline for completing annual performance reviews is March 1st following the calendar year of the review. 

• An email is sent to all faculty members and department administrators in the Fall, outlining any new enhancements that were made to the PRiSM platform since the last review period.    

• It is the department’s responsibility to ensure that faculty members complete their annual reviews in a timely manner, allowing time for discussions between the reviewer(s) and the faculty member and finalization of the performance reviews and performance ratings.   

• It is also the department’s responsibility to assist faculty members in developing and implementing any required Performance Improvement Agreements (PIAs) or Extensive Reviews (See below for more information).   

• The PRiSM platform includes an administrative dashboard, which allows department administrators to track the progress of all performance reviews and even modify the review routing.  Department administrators can designate departmental administrative staff to manage routing and tracking of reviews.   

• New faculty members, including all those who did not complete a review in PRiSM the previous year, will be assigned a default review route, which typically designates the department chair as the primary reviewer.   

• Faculty members cannot change their designated reviewers or review routing; however, they can email their designated administrative staff directly from PRiSM if they believe a change to the review routing is needed.   

• In order to reduce the number of emails your department receives requesting routing changes, please verify these routes are correct early in the process.  

• Department administrators can access review status reports by logging into the SOM Portal, clicking on “PRiSM” and selecting the “Reports” tab at the top. 

• Faculty members employed by DHHA  also complete their annual reviews in PRiSM.  For questions regarding PRiSM or the review process, contact [email protected].  

• Faculty members paid by VAMC and NJH are not required to complete their annual reviews in PRiSM.  However, if departments wish to have faculty members paid by these institutions complete their reviews in PRiSM, they may be included.  

• The annual preview period also provides an opportunity to collect updated CVs and job descriptions from your faculty. 

• Finally, new faculty members undergoing their first PRiSM review may need more support during the process.  At a minimum, sharing this guide with them may be beneficial. 

Assignment of Overall Performance Ratings 

All full-time (> 0.5 FTE) School of Medicine faculty members employed by the University of Colorado or Denver Health are required to complete an annual review within PRiSM.  At the conclusion of the annual review, University-employed faculty members receive an overall performance rating (Outstanding, Exceeding Expectations, Meeting Expectations, Below Expectations or Fails to Meet Expectations).  The summary rating is the only information that is sent to Human Resources; this rating becomes a publicly-available record.  The remainder of the information in the PRiSM review remains in the faculty member’s confidential personnel file.

In 2021, the process for assigning faculty members’ overall performance ratings was clarified.  While PRiSM allows primary and secondary reviewers to recommend a performance rating, the overall final rating is always assigned by the final reviewer, which is the department chair or the chair’s designee.  This rating is forwarded to Human Resources by the Office for Faculty Affairs at the end of the review process.

Performance Improvement Agreements and Extensive Reviews 

Faculty members who are rated “Below Expectations” or “Fails to Meet Expectations” on their annual review must participate in developing and implementing a Performance Improvement Agreement (PIA).  The PIA should be put into place within two months after the end of the review cycle.  However, if the faculty member chooses to appeal their “not meeting expectations” or “below expectations” rating, the PIA process does not begin until the appeal process is completed.  If the faculty member does not meet the goals of the PIA by the next review cycle, an Extensive Review process is initiated.  For more information about PIAs (including a template), Extensive Reviews, and the process for faculty members to appeal their annual review, please see the SOM appeal policy.  For additional information about the procedures, go to: https://www.cu.edu/ope/aps/5008.