The 1996 Focus Group Sessions That Led to the CDCP

Global environment• Skepticism about the likelihood of any positive changes being made
Institutional issues• How do the missions of the department and the hospital integrate?
Departmental issuesThe big issue is equity:
• How can the department set consistent expectations across and within divisions?
• Can we avoid “deal making”?
Job/role issues• More clarity is needed.
• The individual physician should be fully involved in defining expectations.
• The physicians whose primary role was to provide clinical care felt undervalued.
Performance evaluationInterest centered on:
• Establishing objectives and meaningful measures
• Differentiating superior from average performance
• Using a more objective process (“more than just impressions”)
• Having money to recognize performance
Compensation issuesThe preliminary focal points were:
• Opportunity
• A fair process
• Openness
1. All JAPs are equally valued.
2. Excellence in each of the 6 JAPs is rewarded equally.
3. Development/growth opportunities are available in each JAP.
4. Compensation is influenced by, but not limited to, achievements that contribute to university academic promotion.
5. A structured performance evaluation is provided, which aims to be open and understood by the physicians and valid and valued by the participants.
  • * Reprinted from O’Brodovich H, Pleinys R, Walker NE. Peer-reviewed career development and compensation program for physicians in an academic health science centre. Ann R Coll Physicians Surg Can. 2000;33:88–96.