BACKGROUND: Despite the unquestionable importance of clinically oriented research designed to test the safety and efficacy of new therapies in patients with malignant disease, there is limited information regarding strategies to evaluate the quality of such efforts at academic institutions. METHODS: To address this issue, a committee of senior faculty at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center established specific criteria by which investigators from all departments engaged in clinical research could be formally evaluated. Scoring criteria were established and revised based on the results of a pilot study. Beginning in January 2004, the committee evaluated all faculty involved in clinical research within 35 departments. Scores for individual faculty members were assigned on a scale of 1 (outstanding) to 5; a score of 3 was set as the standard for the institution. Each department also received a score. The results of the evaluation were shared with departmental chairs and the Chief Academic Officer. RESULTS: 392 faculty were evaluated. The median score was 3. Full professors more frequently received a score of 1, but all faculty ranks received scores of 4 and 5. As a group, tenure/tenure track faculty achieved superior scores compared to nontenure track faculty. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our experience, we believe it is possible to conduct a rigorous consensus-based evaluation of the quality of clinical cancer research being conducted at an academic medical center. It is reasonable to suggest such evaluations can be used as a management tool and may lead to higher-quality clinical research. Copyright 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.
BACKGROUND: Despite the unquestionable importance of clinically oriented research designed to test the safety and efficacy of new therapies in patients with malignant disease, there is limited information regarding strategies to evaluate the quality of such efforts at academic institutions. METHODS: To address this issue, a committee of senior faculty at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center established specific criteria by which investigators from all departments engaged in clinical research could be formally evaluated. Scoring criteria were established and revised based on the results of a pilot study. Beginning in January 2004, the committee evaluated all faculty involved in clinical research within 35 departments. Scores for individual faculty members were assigned on a scale of 1 (outstanding) to 5; a score of 3 was set as the standard for the institution. Each department also received a score. The results of the evaluation were shared with departmental chairs and the Chief Academic Officer. RESULTS: 392 faculty were evaluated. The median score was 3. Full professors more frequently received a score of 1, but all faculty ranks received scores of 4 and 5. As a group, tenure/tenure track faculty achieved superior scores compared to nontenure track faculty. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our experience, we believe it is possible to conduct a rigorous consensus-based evaluation of the quality of clinical cancer research being conducted at an academic medical center. It is reasonable to suggest such evaluations can be used as a management tool and may lead to higher-quality clinical research. Copyright 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.