Packet Items

Appointment / Promotions

For the intial faculty, the documents below should focus on the time from obtaining the terminal degree to the present.  For promotions, the documents below should focus on the recent time in rank.

Transmittal Letter

This is a letter from the department chair to the Medical School dean that accompanies candidate packets for appointments and promotions. This is usually 1 page and acts as a "cover letter" to the packet.


The transmittal letter introduces the candidate, requests the appointment, and states the proposed date of appointment.

To help prevent a delay in processing, the letter may also point out any unusual circumstances about the appointment — for example, the rationale for an accelerated tenure request or an explanation of an asymmetrical evaluation that is heavier on research than on teaching. 

The Provost is asking that additional information be added to the Chair’s transmittal letter to the Dean for appointments of clinical associate/clinical professors.  Each letter from the Chair must include a paragraph that describes the search process leading to the candidate’s selection (including nature of the search, e.g., open or targeted; composition of the pool; information about candidates at each stage of the search) and a separate paragraph justifying the recommendation for the appointment at the relevant rank.  

Sr. Level Appointments: Identify Clinical Pathway


This letter endorses the faculty member for promotion and states the faculty member's proposed new rank.  

To help prevent a delay in processing, the letter may also point out any unusual circumstances about the promotion — for example, the rationale for an accelerated tenure request or an explanation of an asymmetrical evaluation that is heavier on research than on teaching. 

Scholarly Impact Statement:

The Scholarly Impact Statement is required on all promotion transmittal letters.  2-3 sentences on what specific substantial impact the faculty member's research/scholarly work has had on their field.  


  • Dr. Wonka published a paper in both the Journal of the American Medical Association and Radiology simultaneously on the reporting template for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and as a result of his research, he has made a significant impact in contributions to imaging of patients with pancreatic disease and diseases of the intestine. 
  • Dr. Wonka’s impact has been in the continuous improvement of the Training Core, and in developing and providing educational programs for animal care, for which she has received national and international acclaim. 
  • His most substantive research impact is in discovering a new molecular alteration in Langerhans cell histiocytosis that has led to targetable therapy for this disease.  This discovery has changed the way patients with this disease are treated.
  • Dr. Wonka’s most substantive scholarly impact has been her work involving sleep disturbances in substance use disorders and the role of insomnia in depressed adolescents.  This work has had a lasting and significant impact in the field of sleep medicine.

Sr. Level Promotions: Identify Clinical Pathway

Professionalism/DEI Statement:

The Michigan Medicine core values of caring, innovation, inclusion, integrity, and teamwork are demonstrated through professional conduct and behaviors from our faculty members. Please include an individualized statement within the Chair’s transmittal letter confirming that the promotional candidate exhibits a high level of professionalism. If there are any previous or ongoing professionalism issues, summarize the issues and provide details of remediation and improvement in professionalism. Please also include a separate individualized statement that describes how the candidate contributes to strengthening an environment that supports and promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Examples of a these statements in a Chair transmittal letter is as follows:

Dr. X always exhibits a high level of professionalism in all of her/his/their roles. She/he/they always demonstrate civility, empathy, and respect for others, and have outstanding communication skills with others.

Dr. X contributes to strengthening an environment that supports and promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion. She/he/they serve on the departments’ DEI Committee, and Promotions Committee, and participated in a workshop on how to recruit a diverse faculty group.  Dr. X has mentored other department faculty and fellows on the importance of DEI in clinical and academic teams.


Dr. Y always has had acceptable professional behavior as a faculty member with the exception of staff interactions when she/he/they first started in the outpatient clinic. Some staff members felt that Dr. Y was short-tempered and did not listen well or communicate with staff. This was reported to Dr. Y and she/he/they were appropriately concerned and worked to improve these behaviors. Dr. Y was provided mentorship from a senior physician, was provided on-line resources, and attended faculty development workshops on improving communications. Staff were queried after these interventions, and noted that Dr. Y’s behavior had improved and there were no ongoing issues. Since that time Dr. Y has exhibited excellent professionalism in the clinical and academic environments.

Dr. Y contributes to strengthening an environment that supports and promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion. She/he/they care for a diverse group of patients, and have worked with members of the community to improve food security for patients of lower socioeconomic status. Dr. Y also participated in a one day program to provide information to high school students from diverse backgrounds on careers in medicine. 


The Dean's office would like to see the effort called out in the heading line of all Chair's transmittal letters for every appointment totaling 1.0 FTE.  Here are some examples:

  • Bruce Banner, M.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor, with tenure, Department of Neurosurgery (1.0 FTE), Research Associate Professor, Department of Pathology (0.0 FTE)
  • Minnie Mouse, M.D., Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical School (0.5 FTE), and Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public Health (0.5 FTE)
  • James Bond, Ph.D., Research Associate Professor, Department of Radiology, Medical School (0.5 FTE)
  • Willie Wonka, M.D., Ph.D., Professor, with tenure, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical School, University of Michigan (0.8 FTE), Adjunct Professor, without tenure, Department of Internal Medicine, Oregon State University (0.2 FTE)


  • Example may be used for either appointments or promotions by changing the language within accordingly
  • Opening Paragraph:  Senior level appointments and promotions - Identify Clinical Pathway
  • Clinical Track Appointment Transmittal Letter

Form B

This document — also known as the Three-Page Summary of Appointment Recommendation — provides packet reviewers with a standard summary of a candidate's work. Form B is part of candidate packets for both appointments and promotions. 

Form B includes descriptions of these aspects of a candidate's work.  


Candidates' service contributions should be described in terms of quality and quantity. These activities may include administrative or committee work for departmental, school, University, or national organizations.

Professional Work in Patient Care

Candidates' clinical service, where applicable to their role, should be described in terms of quality and quantity. You may include discussions of the candidate's unique clinical expertise and their relationship to other clinical disciplines. 


Describe and evaluate the quality, originality, and significance of the candidate's research. Include a description of work in progress. Note publications as a practical way of documenting the nominee's contributions. Note service on study sections or membership on editorial boards. Remark on ability to compete successfully for external research funding.


Clinical Track: Teaching is an important component of Clinical Track appointments. Include documentation of quality and quantity of teaching activities.

Recent and Significant Publications

Clinical Track: Include the five most significant publications of the Clinical Associate Professor or Clinical Professor candidate since their appointment or last promotion. If the candidate is not the first or the senior author, briefly explain his or her role. For Clinical Assistant Professors, a minimum of 1 significant publication is required. A maximum of 5 may be submitted.

Evaluators' Comments

Summarize the comments of all peer reviewers. To maintain the confidentiality of peer reviewers, use designations such as "Reviewer A," "Reviewer B," etc.

In choosing quotes from letters, look for sections that will be clear to readers who aren't specialists in the field. Comparisons with other scholars in the field and estimated rankings, nationally and internationally, are especially helpful. Avoid references to the age of the candidate.

Career Development Plan

  1. A clearly defined pathway specific to the faculty member in his/her/their major areas of faculty effort – clinical care, education, research, service.
  2. The mentors, advisors, and sponsors who will help the faculty member achieve success in their first few years, why they are suited to guiding the specific faculty member, and the planned logistics for mentoring activities.
  3. The protected time, research space and/or funding that will be provided for the faculty member to achieve academic success.
  4. Educational or other training programs, leadership development plans, or other resources that will be utilized to advance the faculty member.

This plan is required for:

  • Clinical Assistant Professor



Incoming faculty are required to submit their CV in the format listed within the Med School CV guidelines.  Faculty already at U-M must use the Elements CV application to input information and generate a formatted vita for appointments and promotions.  For promotion candidates who are in the current promotion cycle, please continue to utilize the M-CV application for promotions submitted to OFA on 10/1/2022.

Educator's Portfolio

The Educator's Portfolio provides documentation of teaching and teaching effectiveness for appointment and promotion. Each faculty member's portfolio will be different, depending on their work and its context. Faculty in academia are expected to act as mentors and effective mentorship is rewarded as part of the promotion process.  This is documented in the educator’s portfolio using evidence of clinical mentorship through bedside teaching, didactics, etc. or as scientist/scholars as co-authors on projects such as posters, manuscripts and grants, letters from program leaders and mentees, teaching awards, etc. Each faculty member's portfolio will be different, depending on their work and its context. 

The educator's portfolio is approximately 2-3 pages in length.  Guidelines are recommendations, not rigid requirements.  

Portfolio Narrative

If you're seeking promotion, state whether the evaluating committee should assess your teaching as a central or secondary component of your responsibilities. Indicate the proportion of your FTE devoted to teaching and other education.

Section 1

Summarize teaching activities and approximate time commitment. Emphasize your activities since appointment to UMMS faculty or your last promotion. Consider separate learner categories if you teach at multiple levels, such as medical students, graduate students, allied health students, residents/fellows, continuing medical education.

Section 2

List your most important teaching contributions, identified under such headings as:

  • Curriculum Design and Development (e.g., new course or revision, course integration).
  • Teaching Responsibilities.
  • Instructional Materials (e.g., syllabi, web-based materials).
  • Educational Administration or Service (e.g., course, sequence or clerkship director; residency program director; advising; curriculum committee membership).
  • Educational Scholarship (e.g., presentations or published manuscripts related to education; creative products of educational activity that have been reviewed for quality by peers and made available for others).
  • Professional Development in Education (e.g., participation in workshops; fellowship; specific efforts to advance skills in teaching).

The evidence of quality and the impact of your contributions — as displayed through evidence of learning, program improvement, skills development, etc. — is more important than the number of contributions you list.

For each contribution:

  • Briefly describe your role.
  • Provide evidence of the quality or the impact of your activity. This can include: evaluations by students, peers, and course directors; adoption of your work by other schools; teaching awards; or presentations of your work at meetings.

Teaching Evaluations

Teaching Evaluations require a Cover Sheet.  For each group of learners you taught and described in your portfolio narrative, include a summary of that student group's evaluations. Summaries should include both written comments, if they're available, and any numerical scale rating of the teaching activity.  The summary of teaching evaluations used in an Educator's Portfolio must have been submitted since the faculty member's previous promotion or appointment.

Summary should include

  • Type of learner taught (e.g. undergraduates, graduates, medical students, house officers, fellows, continuing medical education learners, etc.).
  • Number of learners in the course or activity.
  • Years that the learner evaluations were completed. Do not send evaluations used in a previous packet for appointment or promotion. These should be new evaluations.

Examples of items that you may include for the evaluation summary

  • Individual mentee feedback — but only include if this is related to a major mentoring activity and it is a previous mentee.  
  • Summary of undergraduate or graduate evaluations of a lecture course.
  • Summary sheets of labs or courses taught to medical students.
  • Summary sheets and numeric ratings from house officers, available from MedHub.
  • Summary evaluations of CME lecturers — but only include if this is the main part of your teaching.
  • If you are giving a lecture and evaluations are unavailable, use the seminar feedback template to solicit your own evaluations for talks.

Checklist Summary Cover Form

Bibliographic Notes

Bibliographic Notes are required for the appointments and promotions packets. These notes provide context to the Recent and Significant scholarly products that are also part of the packet. 

Each note should be numbered according to the number of the publication as it's listed in the faculty member's CV. The notes below are from 5 real publications that show the diversity and the value of writing Bibliographic Notes.

Format Example

18. Wang SC, McGuire EJ, Bloom DA: A bladder pressure management system for myelodysplasia – clinical outcome. J Urol 140:1499-1502, 1988.

This paper articulates a new paradigm for managing children with spina bifida using clean intermittent catheterization and anticholinergics with surveillance based on the leak point pressure concept. These methods were pioneered here in Ann Arbor and this paper illustrates the best outcomes reported in terms of preservation of upper urinary tract structure and function.

22. Zoubek J, Bloom DA, Sedman AB: Extraordinary urinary frequency. Pediatrics 85(6):1112-1114, 1990.

This paper was the largest report of an experience of a common but generally misunderstood and over- investigated pediatric difficulty which we named, “Extraordinary urinary frequency.” Jerri Zoubek was the resident who collected the data. The idea for the paper, the writing of the paper, and the patient base were all my contribution. Aileen Sedman was my pediatric nephrology colleague who helped with the manuscript and design of our study. As a result of this paper, this terminology is generally used for this problem and the management follows the guidelines herein reported.

23. Bloom DA, Knechtel JM, McGuire EJ: Urethral dilation improves bladder compliance in children with myelomeningocele and high pressure bladders. J Urol 144:430-433, 1990.

This paper showed that lessening of outlet resistance in children with spina bifida provides a durable improvement in bladder compliance. This data had a somewhat serendipitous origin. We had shown that urethral dilation lowers leak point pressure in children with myelomeningocele (paper #21) and a few years later we decided, for the fun of it, to see how the calculated initial detrusor compliance changed immediately and late after the dilation. The outlet resistance and long term detrusor characteristics were discovered to be linked inextricably. This data leaves one to speculate that the end stage bladder of myelodysplasia may be a pathophysiologic situation similar to that seen in posterior urethral valves and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Citation survey: cited references 16, times cited 27.

27. Bloom DA: Two-step orchiopexy with pelviscopic clip litigation of the spermatic vessels. J Urol 145:1030-1033, 1991.

This was the first use of laparoscopy in the urological arena for a therapeutic procedure.

116. Baru JS, Bloom DA, Muraszko K, Koop CE: John Holter’s Shunt. J Am Coll Surg 192:79-85, 2001.

The Holter Shunt is a cardinal tool for management of children with spina bifida. John Holter, an industrial technician, innovated the shunt for use in his own child in the 1950’s. The first author of our paper, Josh Baru, was an undergraduate student we sent to interview John Holter in Pennsylvania and collect materials for this work. The idea for the paper was mine and I shared the design and writing of the paper with Josh. Karin Muraszko is our pediatric neurosurgeon who provided critical background necessary for this paper. C. Everett Koop had been Chief of Staff at the hospital in which the shunt was first used and helped us not only with some factual information and insights but also with the final proofreading of the manuscript.

Example Notes

Recent and Significant Scholarly Products

These publications are selected by the faculty candidate. They should represent the faculty member's best work and have been produced since the last promotion or new appointment. These scholarship items are described in the Bibliographic Notes and listed in the Form B.  Items that are "accepted" for publication or are "in press" are acceptable, however "submitted" items are not acceptable.  

Submit 1 copy of each scholarly product (reprint) as part of the packet.

Depending on the faculty member's rank, 1 to 5 scholarly products will be required. For details of requirements by rank, please visit either the appointment packet tool or the promotion packet tool.  

Scholarly Clinical Portfolio *promotions only

The Scholarly Clinical Portfolio (SCP) is required by all faculty on the Clinical Track being put up for promotion.  The Scholarly Clinical Portfolio should include the faculty member's scholarly contributions and should not be an excerpt from the talking points or from the educator's portfolio.  

Being promoted to:  Junior Level (Assistant Professor)

    • 1-2 sentences indicating they are junior faculty and still establishing their desired pathway.

Being promoted to:  Senior Level: (Associate and Professor Levels)

    • No more than 1 page in length
      • Written as a narrative outlining the faculty member's scholarly activity and focus.
      • Describe which pathway best fits your accomplishments and goals.  
        • Clinician Scholar
          • If the faculty member's scholarly focus is clinical research - the research portfolio is more applicable.  Add a sentence indicating that their scholarly focus is clinical research which is described in the research portfolio. 
        • Clinician Educator
        • Clinical Patient Safety/Quality Innovator
        • Clinician Leader/Administrator
        • Individualized (2 or more pathways)


Within the examples, there are MCV Clinical Scholarly Contribution examples as well as the Scholarly Clinical Portfolio Examples.

Talking Points *promotions only

This document is a 2-3 page commentary by faculty members as part of the promotions process.  Overlap between the Talking Points document and other documents is allowed.

It describes

  • The faculty member's scholarly niche and type of scholarship
  • Professional expertise
  • Contributions to the field
  • Special skills
  • Instructional contributions
  • National leadership
  • DEI efforts
  • Etc.

This narrative acts as a self-assessment that may help a chair understand the candidate and that candidate’s self-image. The purpose of the Talking Points is to help the chair in writing the Form B. The committees that review the packet also find the Talking Points to be a helpful document in understanding the candidate’s work. A copy of the Talking Points must be submitted with the promotion package.


Research Portfolio *optional **promotions only

The Research Portfolio provides an opportunity for faculty candidates to detail their research contributions at U-M. This document is included in packets for appointments and promotions.  This document is especially important to faculty in team or “big” science efforts, where there are multiple contributors across many disciplines — rather than a single PI.

  • For promotions, the Research Portfolio is optional if a scholarly portfolio is completed, but the faculty member should provide a research statement articulating what they do instead of research (e.g. "I have a heavy clinical workload and am director of the X fellowship program"). There is no formal template for the Research Portfolio. Team scientists should detail their role and specific contributions. List the team's resulting publications, and describe your role in each publication.

The research portfolio is approximately 2-3 pages in length. 

Documenting Team Science

Team scientists may also ask fellow team members to provide letters that attest to their contributions to the project. These letters do not replace the requirement for evaluation letters (Arm’s Length or Non-Arm’s Length), but they do provide critical information in evaluating scientific accomplishments.

Team science reference letters are solicited outside any appointments- or promotions-processing application. Once received, they should be included with the Research Portfolio and uploaded as one PDF document in the application.


Innovation Portfolio *optional **promotions only

To recognize innovation, discovery and entrepreneurship in the promotion process. Impact will be included as a part of the promotion materials.  Committees would evaluate the candidate’s contributions to technology transfer and entrepreneurship, if applicable.  Outside reviewers could be asked to evaluate the candidate’s broader impact in entrepreneurship or business through start-up, consulting, technology transfer or other relevant activities.