d. External Review
External reviewers should be recognized leaders in the field, committed to a collegial review of the program, and represent programs that are peers or aspirants of the program under review. Program leadership may recommend names to the Program Review Committee, but the final decision whom to invite will rest with the chair of the Program Review Committee. In most cases, two external reviewers will be selected to review the program.
Prior to the site visit, the reviewers will receive overview information about the MGH Institute, the self-study report, and guiding questions generated by the Program Review Committee to focus their attention. The visit will typically last one and a half days, beginning with an introductory meeting with the provost and chair of the Program Review Committee. Reviewers will meet with representative samples of faculty, staff, students, and administrators. If there is not enough time to visit clinical sites, the reviewers may converse with clinical partners through a telephone or video meeting. On the second day, reviewers will have dedicated time to formulate initial recommendations and then end with a confidential exit interview.
Within 30 days of the visit, the external reviewers will submit a report informed by the MGH Institute’s strategic plan, the 12 areas highlighted in the self-study, institutional effectiveness documents, and the site visit. The report will explicitly address:
1. What is innovative or distinctive about this program? Which strengths could be amplified or expanded?
2. Where does the program lag leading programs in the field? How might the weaknesses be addressed?
3. Are there new directions in the profession, health care, or higher education that the program should be considering as it looks to the future?
4. What are your overall recommendations for where program leaders should focus their energies in the next five years? What resources would be necessary to achieve those goals?