/Institutions/MGH-Institute-of-Health-Professions/json/Current/Faculty-Handbook-local.json

/Institutions/MGH-Institute-of-Health-Professions/json/Current/Faculty-Handbook.json

Faculty Handbook 2024-2025 > X. Program Review

X. Program Review

As part of the IHP’s commitment to assure academic excellence and promote continuous quality improvement, academic programs go through periodic external assessment. Together with measures of student learning and faculty member performance, program review provides evidence of how well a unit is meeting the IHP’s defined success criteria. While most entry-level degree programs receive specialized accreditation, that scrutiny tends to focus on meeting minimum thresholds. Program review considers all aspects of program outcomes with the goal of attaining even greater alignment with the IHP’s mission, vision, and core values. 

a. Timetable

Programs are selected to participate in a formal review process roughly once every ten years. Review cycles typically occur at the mid-point of a program’s specialized accreditation term although they can also occur in response to a significant curricular change or concerning trend. Where relevant, programs that do not lead to a degree or that serve an academic support function may also participate in the process. A complete cycle of academic program review takes about seven months. An example schedule: 

 

January	Program Review Committee meets with representative from program under review and invites external reviewers
February-March	Program under review completes self-study
April	Program Review Committee reviews self-study and sends instructions to external reviewers
May	External reviewers conduct virtual or in-person visit to validate self-study
June	Program Review Committee receives external reviewers’ report and sends summary to the provost
July	Provost shares report and summary with leadership team and then asks program chair and dean for response

b. Responsibilities

The process relies on coordination among four groups. The provost will appoint the chair of the Program Review Committee. Other committee members will represent faculty from the schools and staff from institutional research and effectiveness, enrollment services, finance and administration, and other relevant offices.

 

Office of the Provost	Schedule meetings for committee and reviewers Arrange travel (if needed) and honoraria for external reviewers
Academic Program	Complete honest and thorough self-study Meet in-person or virtually with reviewers Reflect on recommendations
Program Review Committee	Select and invite external reviewers Highlight priorities for external reviewers to focus on Read and interpret final report Submit summary of process to provost
External reviewers	Read program self-study Conduct probing on-campus or online visit Write final report

c. Self-Study

The academic program under review will generate a written report, addressing each of the 21 program success indicators. All stakeholders (administrators, faculty, staff, students, clinical and research partners, and alumni) should have the opportunity to provide input into the self-study.

In the self-study, the program will produce a narrative providing evidence for how it achieves the success indicators and identify key areas where it could improve. Each topic narrative should not exceed one, single-spaced page. Therefore, the total narrative should be no longer than 21 pages. Additional evidence and examples may be appended.

 

Category	Domain	Success indicator (The program…)
Mission	MGH Institute of Health Professions, a member of Mass General Brigham, educates health professionals and researchers to drive innovation in the delivery of equitable and interprofessional care for a diverse and complex society through leadership in education, clinical practice, scholarship, and community engagement	1. Provides holistic support to all learners to allow for on-time academic progression
		2. Prepares graduates ready to enter and advance practice
		3. Offers curricular and extracurricular opportunities that equip learners to identify and mitigate system-level policies and practices that reinforce health inequities
		4. Offers curricular and extracurricular opportunities to hone knowledge, skills, and attitudes for interprofessional collaborative practice
		5. Builds sustainable and mutually beneficial partnerships with professional associations, clinical affiliates, and community organizations
Vision	Improving health outcomes and equity through innovative education and research	6. Fosters high-quality teaching guided by evidence-based practices and universal design
		7. Creates environment conducive for high-impact research and scholarship
Core values	The highest standards of professional, academic, and scholarly excellence, ethical conduct, integrity, and personal, social, and planetary health responsibility	8. Advances a national reputation in research, scholarship, and health professions education
		9. Identifies environmental, ethical, and legal challenges and gives these challenges appropriate consideration in decision-making
		10. Maintains compliance with professional, regulatory, and accreditation requirements
	An inclusive and welcoming environment where every person is treated with dignity and respect	11. Fosters positive relationships where students, faculty, and staff collaborate to achieve common goals
	Mutual trust, collegiality, and principles of social justice in our relationships with each other, those we serve in healthcare, and the community	12. Creates opportunities for cross-cultural engagement that facilitate meaningful interactions
	Productive partnerships among faculty, staff, students, and alumni that support learning and work, optimize interprofessional practice, and foster global collaboration	13. Receives input from clinical, professional, community, and international colleagues to maintain curricular alignment with external trends
	A connected, engaged, and diverse learning community where students develop a passion for lifelong learning and become graduates of choice for employers	14. Supports MGB and larger health professional workforce needs
	An environment that embraces and rewards inquiry, ingenuity, innovation, resourcefulness, and continuous learning	15. Collects data for regular assessment of work and learning outcomes and implements continuous quality improvement
	A rewarding work environment where talented people thrive	16. Recruits, retains, and develops faculty and staff workforce that reflects regional population demographics
	Accountability and transparency in our work and prudent, efficient stewardship of resources	17. Coordinates with administrative units to market program and recruit qualified students
		18. Generates financial sustainability
		19. Endeavors to increase student affordability without compromising quality
		20. Rightsizes faculty and staff number and roles
		21. Employs technology for operational efficiency

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 virtual or on-campus 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, alumni, and administrators. The reviewers should also converse with representatives from central administrative units and collaborating organizations. 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 both the self-study and the 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?

e. Final Recommendations

Following review of the external reviewers’ report, the Program Review Committee will generate a list of recommendations to be forwarded to the provost and program leadership. The Office of the Provost will schedule a debrief with the provost, chair of the Program Review Committee, and program leadership to review the recommendations and plan for acting on them.

f. Sequence

The Office of the Provost together with the Program Review Committee will determine the sequence of programs to review, considering when in a program’s cycle of specialized accreditation would be most helpful. Past program reviews:

2012: Physical Therapy

2015: Communication Sciences and Disorders

2016: Health Professions Education

2019: Advanced Practice Nursing

2020: Physician Assistant Studies

2021: Office of Student and Alumni Services

2022: Library and Instructional Design

2022: Accelerated Bachelor of Science in Nursing

2024: Genetic Counseling

2024: PhD in Rehabilitation Sciences