Application Review Process
The Proposal Review Process of the Primary Care Faculty Development Initiative (PCFDI) is intended to ensure that applications submitted to the PCFDI are evaluated on the basis of a process that is fair, equitable, timely, and free of bias.
Proposal review will be carried out by an ad hoc, interprofessional expert panel of reviewers made up of members of the American Board of Family Medicine, the American Board of Internal Medicine, and the American Board of Pediatrics selected by HRSA. Reviewers will have demonstrated expertise and leadership in education, patient care and/or research.
The Primary Care Faculty Development Initiative (PCFDI) pilot program is being conducted by Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) pursuant to contract HHSH250201200023C with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration.
An initial review of the completeness of the applications will be undertaken by Project faculty/staff.
A. Peer Review Roles and Meeting Overview
- Oversee administrative and regulatory aspects of peer review meetings.
- Serve as moderator of the discussion of evaluation /merit of applications under review.
- Serve as peer reviewer of assigned applications.
Reviewers: RC members
- Access the applications approximately 2 weeks prior to the peer review meeting.
- Declare Conflicts of Interest with specific applications.
- Review each assigned application and comment on the strengths and weaknesses of each according to review criteria.
- Assign a numerical score to each review criterion using the review form provided.
- Make final recommendations concerning the merit of applications under review by Jan 22, 2013, in advance of the meeting.
Peer Review Meeting Procedures
- Applications will be reviewed based on established review criteria (below).
- Each application will have two reviewers, the primary reviewer will present the application and the secondary reviewer will only comment on areas not covered by the primary reviewer or areas where disagreements exist.
- Assigned reviewers will briefly summarize their critiques for the group.
- An open discussion of the applications will follow.\
For all applications, the individual scores for these criteria will be reported to the applicant.
Scored Review Criteria. Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of technical merit, and give a separate score for each. A maximum of 80 points per application will be allotted. Individual points per criteria will be tallied based on the scoring sheet:
Criterion 1: Collaborative Potential (20 points)
- Evidence of current collaboration among the three disciplines
- Strength of the proposed collaboration
Criterion 2: Clinical and Educational Environment (18 points: max=6 per residency)
- Degree to which the individual residency programs are engaged in educational re-design
- Degree to which the individual residency programs are engaged in practice transformation
Criterion 3: Transformation Potential (30 points: max=10 per residency)
- Potential success of achieving desired outcomes based on design
- Potential impact of the innovation
- Degree to which the proposed innovations involve input and support beyond the faculty level
Criterion 4: Sustainability (12 points: max=4 per residency)
- Degree to which the proposed innovations are aligned with broader institutional efforts and the institutional environment contributes to the probability of successful implementation and maintenance (letters of support)
Overall Impact. Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the application to have positive influence on the disciplines involved, in consideration of the review criteria. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have high impact.