USF –
|
Title:
Grievance (and Appeal) Process |
No.: GME-218 |
|
|
Effective
Date: 1/1/99 |
Revision
Date: 07/30/2003; 6/05; 2/14/07 |
Distribution:
All |
|
Page: 1 of
4 |
||
As
part of the University’s policy of Grievance, the fundamental character of the
academic enterprise should set the context of administrative decision making.
Thus, the values of the academic environment -- values that encourage free
expression, self direction, independence of thought and action, individual
responsibility, collegiality, and the highest standards of ethical behavior --
should guide the determination of methods of investigation and documentation
that will be utilized in the resolution of situations involving non-criminal
malfeasance, misfeasance, or other misconduct of University employees in the
performance of duties (See University Policy #0-017 – Non-Criminal
Investigation Procedures). It should be noted that successful completion of the
evaluation process should interface with the earliest phases of the progressive
discipline process.
In
addition, the University of South Florida recognizes the right of its employees
and students to voice their concern on campus issues or personal issues of
concern to them without fear of any negative, retaliatory, or reprisal action
as a result of having lodged a grievance, appeal, or claim (See University
Policy #0-013 – Reprisals).
Performance
of the resident may result in disciplinary actions leading to the discontinuation
of the individual in the Residency Program. A standardized five (5)-step
progressive disciplinary process for all COM Housestaff consisting of two
distinct levels and subsequent right of the resident to initiate the Grievance
Procedure are outlined below.
Following the
receipt of reliable information that the resident’s clinical judgment or
proficiency in clinical skills necessary to the practice of medicine is
deficient or impaired the following steps shall be implemented until the deficiency
is corrected or the resident is terminated from the program. Upon
or following review of the resident’s progress through the evaluation process
outlined in Section IV.A.3 of the Resident Handbook
LEVEL
I
|
|
Responsible Party |
Action |
|
Step 1 – Counseling |
Program
Director |
An unstructured counseling session between the resident and the program director, following the evaluation process as outlined in Section IV.A.3 of the Resident Handbook. |
|
Step 2 – Written Warning |
Program
Director, Associate
Dean of GME Office |
Program
director issues a Written Warning with a copy to the Associate Dean of GME. |
A
resident’s appointment in the residency program may be conditioned, suspended
or terminated in the following circumstances:
LEVEL
II
|
|
Responsible Party |
Action |
|
Step
3 - Probation |
Program
Director |
Residents may
be placed on probation after steps one and two are exhausted or without
preliminary warning if circumstances warrant an immediate probation
decision. Program Director notifies the GME Office
of intent to place resident on probation. The Program Director meets with GME
Office to: |
|
|
Associate
Dean of GME Office Program Director |
1.
Ascertain
the validity of the action with regard to the issues. 2.
Clearly
define the issues. 3.
Construct
a statement of probation that outlines due process and right to appeal within
14 days of receipt. General Counsel will review wording of the document(s). Statement will specify: a.
Reason(s)
for action b.
Duration
of probation c.
Specific
requirements for reinstatement to full status Upon
successful completion of remediation plan/probation, Program Director will
notify the resident and the GME Office and document the completion of
probation in the resident’s file. If
probation is not completed successfully, resident may be continued on
probation or may repeat a year, be non-renewed or be terminated. |
|
Step 4 -
Notice of Intent Not to Renew / Notice of Requirement to Repeat a Year /
Notice of Continued Probation |
Program
Director |
Program
Director notifies the resident and the GME Office of intent not to renew; or
notice of requirement to repeat a year or of continued probation and meets
with General Counsel to review wording of the document(s) which will include: |
|
|
Associate
Dean of GME Office General
Counsel |
1. The grounds upon which the action is
based; 2. Advises the resident of his/her right
to request a hearing with the Chair of the department; 3. Informs the resident that he/she has 14
days after receipt to request a hearing; 4. Informs the resident to whom a written
request for hearing is to be directed; and 5. States that failure to request a
hearing constitutes waiver of all rights to an appeal. |
|
|
Resident |
May appeal
the decision by filing a letter of dispute with the Chairman of the Department
for repeat of a year, non-renewal of contract, suspension, termination,
imposition of limits on responsibilities or imposition of disciplinary action,
including but not limited to, continued probation. |
|
|
Chairman |
The
Chairman of the respective department will attempt to address the appeal and
resolve the dispute if possible. |
|
|
Associate
Dean of GME Office |
If
the Chairman is unable to resolve the dispute to the resident’s satisfaction,
the resident may file the letter of dispute, within fourteen (14) days of
receipt of the Chair’s decision, with the Associate Dean, Graduate Medical
Education, who will review the situation and seek resolution. |
|
|
Resident |
May
appeal the decision of the Associate Dean by filing a letter of dispute
within 14 days after receipt of the decision, with the Dean for consideration
by a Performance Dispute Resolution Committee. |
|
|
Associate
Dean of GME Office |
If
unresolved, and the resident files an appeal, the Associate Dean of Graduate
Medical Education shall refer the matter to the Dean for consideration by a
Performance Dispute Resolution Committee.
At that time, the Chairman shall forward documents relating to the
Department’s position to the Dean for subsequent consideration by the
Professional Dispute Resolution Committee. |
|
|
Dean
Dean |
Shall designate a three- (3) person Professional Dispute
Resolution Committee consisting of one USF College of Medicine Faculty member
selected by the Department Chair, one Housestaff or USF College of Medicine
Faculty Member selected by the resident, and a third Member selected by the
first two members. The third member
cannot be a member of the involved Clinical Department or a Chairperson of
any Department. The
Dean will provide all material relevant to the Dispute Resolution Committee,
including a statement of the Department’s position and the resident’s letter
of dispute. The Dispute Resolution
Committee will permit the resident to submit whatever material the resident
believes to have bearing on the dispute for the Committee’s
consideration. The Committee will
arrange to meet with the resident to afford him/her an opportunity to make an
oral presentation. The Committee will
then review all material relevant to the dispute, interview appropriate
individuals, and issue written findings and a recommendation to the
Dean. The Dean shall render the final agency
decision for the |
|
Step 5-Termination / Revision of Decision |
Program
Director, Associate
Dean of GME Office, General
Counsel |
Program
Director meets with Associate Dean of GME Office to draft letters of
termination/revision of decision after appeal. General Counsel will review
wording of the document(s). |
Timeline: Recognizing that it is in
everyone’s best interest to resolve disputes expeditiously, it is difficult to
meet or enforce strict time lines. Every
effort will be made to expedite each step in the appeal process, but emphasis
will be placed on fairness rather than speed.
Hearing
Conduct:
1.
The
resident will be given written notice of the time and place of the hearing
before the Committee.
2.
The
resident may bring an attorney, or other advisor, who can assist the resident,
however, the attorney/advisor will not be allowed to represent the resident or
participate in the deliberation of the Committee.
3.
Although
evidence may be presented, the hearing is not a legal proceeding, does not
follow the rules of law or of evidence, and is not subject to laws relating to
the conduct of legal proceedings.
4.
Since
the Committee is advisory to the Dean and is not serving as the institutional
official, the committee report is not subject to appeal, cross-examination, or
negotiation.
APPROVED:
Associate
Dean, Graduate Medical Education
Dean,
c:p&p\grievance-appeal process REVIEWED,
REVISED, REISSUED 6/05; 2/07