Exploring faculty self-assessment on Clinician Educator Milestones: insights from a multi-institutional study

Clinician educators are essential to the academic medicine workforce, yet understanding how they assess their own teaching competencies is limited. The Clinical Educator Milestones (CEMs) guide growth across key educator domains, but their use and perceived relevance remain underexplored. This study aims to (1) evaluate clinician educators' self-reported performance on the CEMs; (2) examine differences by career level, specialty, and experience; and (3) inform faculty development efforts through a clearer understanding of educators' perceived strengths and gaps.

Clinician educators from 9 US academic institutions completed a self-assessment rating their performance across 4 universal pillars and 11 educational theory and practice competencies on a 1- (novice) to 5- (expert) point scale in 0.5-point increments from August to November 2024. Descriptive statistics and mean difference tests were used to analyze variation across demographic and professional characteristics.

A total of 484 responses to at least 1 CEM were received. Respondents rated themselves highest in commitment to professional responsibilities (mean [SD], 4.30 [0.68]), teaching and facilitating learning (mean [SD], 3.96 [0.74]), and professionalism (mean [SD], 3.93 [0.73]) and lowest in medical education scholarship (mean [SD], 3.11 [1.15]), program evaluation (mean [SD], 3.33 [1.03]), and the science of learning (mean [SD], 3.43 [1.10]). Statistically significant group differences were found by years of posttraining clinical experience (F2,413 = 16.87, P < .001, η2 = .076), years of teaching experience (F2,433 = 20.87, P < .001, η2 = .088), and academic rank (F2,403 = 13.96, P < .001, η2 = .065).

This study identifies key trends in self-perceived strengths and needs among clinician educators and highlights the limited awareness of the CEM framework. As institutions aim to build effective educator development systems, the CEMs can serve as a useful structure for tailoring support to individuals and identifying institutional needs.