The Progress Committee reviews the progress of each medical student to determine if the student meets the requirements for satisfactory academic progress, advancement to the next phase in the M.D. curriculum, and for graduation. All students must also meet ongoing academic, technical, and professional standards.

In its review of students, the Progress Committee makes one of the following two determinations:

• Meeting the requirements for advancement, including the Academic, Professional, and Technical Standards, or
• Not meeting the requirements for advancement, including the Academic, Professional, and Technical Standards, whereby actions may include one of the following adverse actions: supervised remediation, academic probation, suspension, or dismissal

The dean and the YSM Board of Permanent Officers have delegated decision making capacity for these matters to the Progress Committee. A student may appeal an adverse action decision delivered by the Progress Committee as outlined in this policy.

The Progress Committee uses a single and uniform standard for the advancement and graduation of students as outlined in the YSM M.D. Program Advancement and Graduation Requirements section.

Standard Review

Under the standard review of students for satisfactory academic progress and suitability for advancement, and graduation, each student’s suitability for advancement in the M.D. curriculum is reviewed at four designated time points:

1. At the completion of the first-year pre-clerkship curriculum,
2. At the completion of the second-year pre-clerkship curriculum,
3. At the completion of the clerkship curriculum, and
4. In April of the year of graduation.

Student Affairs provides data on each student’s academic, technical, and professional progress, identifies those who appear to be meeting criteria for advancement, and presents this list to the Progress Committee for review and approval at each designated time point.

Students who are identified by the Progress Committee as possibly not meeting the criteria for advancement in the M.D. curriculum, who are therefore at risk for an adverse action decision, are notified in writing and invited to appear for review with the Progress Committee (as outlined below).

Review for Reasons Other Than Standard Review

Students may be referred to the Progress Committee due to concerns including but not limited to those regarding academic performance, potential violations of professionalism standards, or the inability to fulfill the technical standards. Referral should occur consistent with the standards outlined in the Procedure for Flow of Information for Suboptimal Student Behavior or Performance. Students referred to the Progress Committee who are at risk for an adverse action decision are notified in writing and invited to appear for review.

Guidelines for Potential Adverse Action by the progress Committee

The student is provided with a disclosure of relevant data under consideration and can present in writing or in person any other relevant data, evidence, or information that the student would like to be considered in the deliberation. Any student appearing in person may be accompanied by their academic adviser or a faculty member of their choice.

According to the Progress Committee Conflict of Interest Policy, committee members who have a conflict of interest must disclose this to the chair and will be recused from deliberations and decisions about the student being reviewed. The Progress Committee will consider relevant submitted data, including but not limited to letters and reports regarding the issue being considered, student testimony, and special circumstances that may interfere with or limit the student’s ability to meet the program’s academic, professional, or technical standards. Deliberations will occur as outlined by the Progress Committee bylaws. After considering the relevant data and circumstances, the Progress Committee makes one of the following determinations:

1. Supervised Remediation This is designed to engage the student in a structured, supervised improvement plan to address any deficits in academic performance or professionalism with the goal of helping the student improve their performance to a satisfactory level. When supervised remediation is required, the student will be notified in writing by the Progress Committee, including a clear rationale or basis for the decision, and the consequences of not successfully completing the supervised remediation according to a specified timeline.
2. Academic Probation If there is a pattern of unsatisfactory performance or violation of the YSM M.D. Program Code of Conduct or Professionalism Standards, the student may be placed on academic probation. The student will be notified in writing of the terms of the academic probation by the Progress Committee, including a clear rationale or basis for the decision, the requirements for having the academic probation removed, and the consequences of not meeting these requirements according to a specified timeline. Students on academic probation will not have the privileges of an enrolled student in good standing. Students on academic probation may engage in the curriculum and should continue recommended remediation. The performance of students on probation is reviewed regularly by the Progress Committee until requirements are met.
3. Suspension If there is serious violation of the YSM M.D. Program Code of Conduct or Professionalism Standards, the student may be placed on suspension. The student will be notified in writing of the duration and terms of the disciplinary leave by the Progress Committee, including a clear rationale or basis for the decision, the requirements for returning, and the consequences of not meeting these requirements according to a specified timeline. Students who are suspended are not permitted to engage in the curriculum and will not have the privileges of an enrolled student in good standing. Students who are suspended may not work or study at Yale University during this time period.
4. Dismissal If a student is unable to meet the academic requirements of YSM despite remediation efforts or a student does not fulfill the terms outlined for removal of academic probation or suspension, the student may be dismissed. Additionally, if at any time a student behaves in a manner that is considered incompatible with being a physician, they may be dismissed. If dismissal occurs, the student will be notified in writing of the decision by the Progress Committee with a copy to the deputy dean for education and the dean of the School of Medicine. A dismissed student will be disenrolled from YSM without the option of returning.

If a student is placed on academic probation or is suspended at any point during their medical school education, such information will be included in the MSPE. The Progress Committee will review any professionalism-related matter and decide on a case-by-case basis whether such information merits inclusion in the MSPE. The student will be notified of this in writing when such actions are to appear in their MSPE. Refer to YSM policy for Inclusion of Information in the MSPE.

Appeal Process

A student may appeal an adverse action decision by the Progress Committee. An appeal is a formal request for reconsideration of an adverse action decision and must be pursued according to the procedure outlined below:

1. To begin the appeal process, the student must write to the deputy dean for education within ten calendar days from the written decision. If the student believes that the deputy dean has a conflict of interest in considering the appeal, the student must provide an explanation in their written appeal and submit the appeal to the dean of the School of Medicine who will consider the matter and appoint a dean’s designee, if warranted.
2. The student’s appeal must include the specific grounds for appeal and documentation specifically relevant to and in support of the stated grounds for appeal.
3. The only grounds for appeal are: (a) the discovery of information that was not available at the time of the decision, and/or (b) evidence of material errors in procedure that impacted the decision; material errors may include a failure to follow policy or procedures or consider relevant evidence.
4. The “decision-maker”, the deputy dean or the dean’s designee, shall evaluate the appeal by reviewing the information provided and, at the decision-maker’s discretion, request additional information from relevant entities and/or from the student.
5. If it is determined that there are grounds for appeal, the decision-maker will forward the appeal to an ad hoc committee assembled (“Appeal Committee”) by the decision-maker, for reconsideration. In the case of reconsideration, the decision-maker may give the Appeal Committee instructions regarding the nature and extent of the reconsideration.
6. The Appeal Committee will issue a reconsidered decision. The decision-maker will review the new decision and will either approve it or revise it.
7. The student will be notified in writing of the final decision by the decision-maker. No further appeals will be allowed.