6.4: Procedures for Addressing Performance, Professionalism and Technical, Non-Academic Standards Concerns
A. CP3 Procedures for Identifying Concerns
This section of the Stanford School of Medicine MD Handbook & Policy Manual applies to all student academic, professionalism, and technical non-academic concerns. The School of Medicine's Committee on Performance, Professionalism, and Promotion (CP3) is responsible for reviewing all medical student records for the purpose of determining continuous maintenance and fulfillment of the School of Medicine Standards for Performance and Satisfactory Progress (SAP), the School of Medicine Professionalism Principles, and the School of Medicine, Technical, Non-Academic Standards. The CP3 can place any student on its agenda for discussion regarding concerns related to a student not meeting expectations in these areas.
B. Rights Accorded to Students Under Review by the CP3
Students appearing on the agenda of the CP3 will be notified in advance of such a review and will have an opportunity to: discuss the concerns with an Academic Advising Dean; respond to the CP3 in writing; receive a written response detailing any CP3 action taken, or recommendation made; and appeal a decision of the CP3.
C. CP3 Actions and Recommendations
The CP3 may take a variety of actions or make recommendation(s) as it deems appropriate under the facts and circumstances presented, to address matters regarding academic, professionalism, or technical non-academic concerns. The CP3 may also decide whether a more formal intervention is required for substantive concerns (i.e., Three-Step Process for Addressing Substantive Concerns).
D. Three-Step Process for Addressing Substantive Concerns
Substantive concerns regarding a student’s academic progress, professionalism, or adherence to technical non-academic standards will be addressed by the CP3 under a unified three-step process as presented below. In general, the Three-Step Process will take place in the following order: 1. Referral to a dean or appropriate faculty member; 2. Student Meeting with the CP3; 3. Dismissal Hearing. However, some circumstances at the CP3’s discretion may warrant proceeding directly to a Student Meeting with the CP3 (Step 2) or to a Dismissal Hearing (Step 3).
The Three-Step Process is followed for most substantive concerns because the goal of the process is to give students the opportunity and structure to improve. Where a student is alleged to have engaged in conduct that, if true, warrants immediate dismissal from the MD Program, the CP3 may move a matter immediately to a Dismissal Hearing (Step 3).
1. Step 1: Referral to a Dean or Appropriate Faculty Member
Step 1 is a required counseling session with the Senior Associate Dean for Medical Education and/or the student’s Academic Advising Dean, and as appropriate, any other individual (e.g., the student’s Educator-4-CARE (E4C) Mentor or the faculty member identifying the deficiency) whom the CP3 Chair believes is pertinent to discuss the matter. If the alleged deficiency can be explained or corrected in a mutually satisfactory manner, the matter need go no further. The faculty involved should then communicate their conclusions or actions to the CP3.
2. Step 2: Student Meeting with the CP3
A Student Meeting with the CP3 will be called if: the CP3 is dissatisfied with the result of an initial remedial plan or the outcome of a referral to a dean or appropriate faculty member (i.e., Step 1); new concerns are raised about a student, including additional deficiencies. The purpose of a student meeting will be to permit the student and any other involved individuals to present their versions of the alleged deficiency and develop, if possible, a mutually satisfactory remedy.
3. Step 3: Dismissal Hearing
If a student continues to display the inability to meet the School of Medicine Standards for Performance and Satisfactory Progress (SAP), or if a student is alleged to have engaged in conduct that, if true, warrants immediate dismissal from the program, the CP3 Chair may call for a dismissal hearing. A student who is being put forward for dismissal is entitled to this hearing, which will provide an opportunity for the parties to present their positions in a process with the authority to decide on a remedy and/or an outcome, including dismissal from the Stanford School of Medicine MD program. The Dismissal Hearing will be conducted by the Committee on Suitability for the Practice of Medicine.
E. Reconsideration and Appeal Procedures
A student may take one or both of the following steps if they are dissatisfied with a decision of the CP3 regarding an academic, professionalism, or technical non-academic concern:
1. Reconsideration Request of CP3 Decisions
A student who is dissatisfied with a decision of the CP3 may request that the decision be reconsidered by the CP3. The request must be based on relevant new information not available at the time the action was taken, not on a complaint expressing dissatisfaction with the outcome or with an underlying University or Stanford School of Medicine policy of general application. A request from the student to meet with the CP3 may also be considered at the discretion of the CP3 Chair. Any reconsideration request should be submitted in writing within 14 working days of receipt of the decision; the time frame may be extended for good cause at the discretion of the CP3 Chair.
2. Appeal of CP3 Decisions: Student Academic Grievance
A student who is dissatisfied with a decision of the CP3 may file a formal written grievance to the Dean of the School of Medicine under (and within the time limits of) the Student Academic Grievance Procedure, as outlined in the Stanford University Bulletin. The Student Academic Grievance Procedure serves as the appeal of CP3 decisions. The Student Academic Grievance Procedure is a university-wide procedure available to Stanford students to review academic decisions. Grievances must be filed within 30 days from the conclusion of the quarter in which the academic decision was made. The Dean may decide the matter or refer the matter to a grievance officer. The Dean generally has 60 days to reach a decision on a matter. If a student is dissatisfied with the Dean’s decision, a student may appeal the outcome to the Provost.
updated July 24, 2023