RESUMEN

Background  Orthopedic surgery is one of the most competitive specialties to match into a residency. With a plethora of qualified applicants and the subjective nature of matching into any residency program, it can be difficult to accurately assess the chances of successfully matching into orthopedic surgery and the types of programs an applicant will match into. The purpose of this study is to compare the types of programs that students from medical schools with and without home programs match. Methods This was a five-year retrospective study (2019 to 2023) analyzing 155 United States Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) programs and their orthopedic residency-matched students. Of the 155 programs, 40 were excluded from the study due to the lack of obtainable data. For each medical school, we analyzed several variables: the presence of a home program, the total number of orthopedic residency matches, residency program matches, and residency program affiliation (academic, community, university-affiliated community-based, military). Results Of the 2066 total matched applicants from institutions with home programs, 1508 (73%) matched into academic centers, 315 (15.3%) into university-affiliated community programs, 172 (8.3%) into community programs, and 71 (3.4%) into military programs. In contrast, of the 219 total matched applicants from institutions without home programs (orphan applicants), 144 (67.8%) matched into academic programs, 36 (16.4%) into university-affiliated community programs, 28 (12.8%) into community programs, and 11 (5%) into military programs. Conclusion A greater proportion of students from institutions with home programs matched into academic centers compared to orphan applicants (73% vs. 65.8%). A greater proportion of orphan applicants matched into community programs (12.8% vs. 8.3%).

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Two-tiered preference signaling has been implemented in the radiology residency application system to reduce congestion in the setting of high-volume applications. Signals are an indicator of strong interest that an applicant can transmit to a limited number of programs. This study assessed the impact of program signaling on interview invitations, how applicants strategically used signals based on their application's competitiveness, and applicants' attitudes toward the current signaling system. METHODS: A survey was sent to radiology residency applicants registered with TheRadRoom during the 2024 application cycle. We queried the applicant's background, applications, signal distribution, and interview outcome depending on the type of signal sent. We also asked whether respondents received an interview invitation from a hypothetical "comparator non-signaled program" if they had one additional signal to use. Group differences were assessed using nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: A total of 202 applicants completed the survey (28% response rate). Most applied to diagnostic radiology (81%). Nearly all respondents utilized all 6 gold (98%) and 6 silver (96.5%) signals. Interview invitation rates were significantly higher for signaled programs (59.8%±27.4%) than non-signaled (8.5%±8.5%); the invitation rate at the comparator non-signaled programs was 37%. Gold signaled programs had significantly higher interview rates (67.8%±29.3) than silver (51.8%±31.3%). Respondents used 49.2%(±21.7%) of their signals for "likely to match" programs, 33.1%(±20.9%) for "aspirational" programs, and 17.6%(±15.8%) for "safety" programs. Most respondents (146;76%) supported continuing the signaling system for future cycles. CONCLUSION: Signaling programs significantly enhanced interview invitation rates, with gold signals being more effective than silver. The applicants used about 6 total signals for "likely-to-match" programs, 2 for "aspirational" programs, and about 4 for "safety" programs.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 greatly influenced medical education and the residency match. As new guidelines were established to promote safety, travel was restricted, visiting rotations discontinued, and residency interviews turned virtual. The purpose of this study is to assess the geographic trends in distribution of successfully matched General Surgery applicants prior to and after the implementation of pandemic guidelines, and what we can learn from them as we move forward. DESIGN: This was a retrospective review of 129 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited, academic General Surgery Residency Programs across 46 states and the District of Columbia. Categorically matched residents' medical schools (i.e., home institutions), medical school states, and medical school regions as defined per the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), were compared to the same geographic datapoints as their residency program. Preliminary residents were excluded. Residents in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 cycles were sub-categorized into the "pre-COVID" group and residents in the 2021 and 2022 applications cycles were sub-categorized into the "post-COVID" group. The percentages of residents who matched at their home institution, in-state, and in-region were examined. SETTING: Multiple ACGME-accredited, university-affiliated General Surgery Residency Programs across the United States of America. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4033 categorical General Surgery residents were included. RESULTS: Of 4033 categorical residents who matched between 2018 and 2022, 56.1% (n = 2,263) were in the pre-COVID group and 43.9% (n = 1770) were in the post-COVID group. In the pre-COVID group 14.4% (n = 325) of residents remained in-home (IH), 24.4% (n = 553) in-state (IS), and 37.0% (n = 837) in- region (IR), compared to 18.8% IH (n = 333), 27.8% IS (n = 492), and 39.9% IR (n = 706) in the post-COVID group, respectively. Significant increases for IH and IS resident matching at 4.5% and 3.4%, respectively, were noted in the post-COVID period (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic, and the ensuing changes adopted to promote safety, significantly impacted medical student opportunities and the General Surgery residency application process. General Surgery match data over the last 5 years reveals a statistically significant increase in the percentage of applicants matching at in-home and in-state institutions after the pandemic.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Neurosurgery is one of the most competitive specialties, and navigating the match process is often challenging for aspiring applicants. Here, we analyze insights from the National Resident Matching Program Director Surveys, illustrating evolving trends in applicant selection for interviews and for the ranking process, and providing a comparison with other specialties. METHODS: We evaluated 7 surveys administered from 2012 to 2022. Six biennial surveys reported on factors influencing interview and ranking processes, while all 7 surveys included data about the program director (PD)'s attitude toward United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) test scores. RESULTS: The response rate of PDs decreased over the years. The most cited factor for interviews included specialty-specific recommendation letters (95%), USMLE Step 1 scores (91%), and interest in research (78%). A recent decline in emphasis on USMLE Step 1 scores coincided with a growing reliance on USMLE Step 2 scores. Award in basic science held significant esteem to a subset of programs. Personal characteristics dominated for ranking, with faculty interaction (89%), interpersonal skills (89%), and house staff interaction (85%) being the most important. Yet, PDs reported a difficulty in assessing interpersonal skills through virtual interviews. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis revealed the pervasive importance of specialized endorsements and academic achievements when screening applicants for the interview process. A shift in emphasis toward the USMLE Step 2 became apparent. Personal characteristics, on the other hand, seemed crucial to make a match and rank high among the pool of interviewed applicants. We uncovered difficulties in assessing these characteristics through virtual interviews.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Many students have limited exposure to otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (OTOHNS) throughout medical school, limiting recruitment of medical students early in their medical careers. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between otolaryngology interest groups (OIGs) at medical schools and percentage of students matching into OTOHNS residency programs. To characterize specific aspects of OIGs that may impact the percentage of students matching into OTOHNS residency programs from a given medical school. METHODS: Data was obtained from web searches of 141 accredited U.S. allopathic medical schools to see if they possessed OIGs. Information on the various activities and opportunities that OIGs participated in was collected through medical school websites. 2020 NRMP® match results data were obtained. RESULTS: Web searches found that 73 % (103 out of 141) of U.S. allopathic medical schools have OIGs. Medical schools with OIGs were associated with a 35 % increase in the median percentage of OTOHNS matches (P = 0.022). Of the 103 medical schools with OIGs, 53 % (55) of the schools had information on their websites describing activities and opportunities that their OIGs participate in. OIGs with research and/or mentorship opportunities were associated with increases in OTOHNS matches by 32 % (P = 0.043) and 83 % (P = 0.012), respectively. CONCLUSION: The presence of an OIG at a medical school is associated with an increased percentage of students matching into OTOHNS from that medical school. OIGs that provide research or mentorship opportunities are associated with an increased percentage of students matching into OTOHNS from those medical schools.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Enduring shortages of infectious disease physicians across the United States continue despite efforts to mitigate the problem. The recent fellowship match results underscore the difficulty in rectifying that shortage. Our report sheds light on the current geographic distribution of US infectious disease physicians and highlights the challenges faced by rural communities.

RESUMEN

CONTEXT: The landscape of medical education in the United States has undergone significant changes, particularly with the rise of osteopathic medical students, constituting a substantial portion of medical school entrants. The merger of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) in 2020 opened residency slots to allopathic graduates that were previously historically allocated to osteopathic (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine [DO]) physicians. This has impacted various medical specialties, notably orthopedic surgery. Despite an increase in orthopedic surgery applicants, the match rates for DO candidates have faced challenges, raising concerns about the impact of this merger on the future of orthopedic training for DO students. OBJECTIVES: This research aims to analyze the trends in orthopedic surgery match rates for DO vs MD applicants since the single accreditation merger, which began in 2015 with a 5-year transition period that was finalized by 2020. By examining factors such as application numbers, research output, standardized test scores, and program director preferences, the study seeks to identify disparities and challenges faced by DO applicants in securing orthopedic surgery residencies. METHODS: This study utilized publicly available data from the National Residency Match Program (NRMP) 2018, 2020, and 2022 reports. Data encompassed applicant characteristics, including standardized test scores, research experiences, and match outcomes. The study also incorporated insights from NRMP program director surveys, focusing on interview and ranking practices. The analysis involved comparisons of application numbers, match rates, research productivity, and test scores between DO and MD applicants. Statistical analysis was employed to identify any statistically significant differences among the examined variables for the 3 years included in the study. RESULTS: The research revealed a consistent increase in orthopedic surgery applicants from both DO and MD backgrounds. However, MD applicants consistently had higher match rates compared to their DO counterparts, with the gap narrowing over the years. Notably, disparities persisted in research output, with MD applicants demonstrating a significant advantage in publications and presentations. Standardized test scores, although slightly higher for MD applicants, did not significantly impact the differences in match rates. MD applicants had statistically significantly higher numbers of applicants (P = .0010), number of publications (P = .0091), and number of research experiences (P = .0216) over the years examined. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the scores on Step 1 (P = .5038) or Step 2 (P = .4714) between MD and DO candidates. CONCLUSIONS: Despite progress in the acceptance and ranking of DO applicants by program directors, the study highlights enduring challenges in orthopedic surgery match rates between DO and MD candidates. The lack of research opportunities for DO students stands out as a crucial area for improvement, necessitating systemic changes within medical education. Addressing this disparity and ensuring equal access to research experiences could mitigate the gap in match rates, promoting a more equitable environment for all aspiring orthopedic surgeons, regardless of their medical background. Such efforts are vital to fostering inclusivity and enhancing opportunities for osteopathic medical students pursuing competitive specialties like orthopedic surgery.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Preference signaling (program signals and geographic preference divisions) was introduced as a component of the supplemental application for internal medicine applicants applying to programs within the United States (USA) during the 2021-22 cycle. These signals were intended to address application inflation by allowing applicants to express interest in and increase their likelihood of receiving interviews from their top programs. There is little published data, however, to describe the impact of preference signaling on the likelihood of receiving interviews from a program. This study thus sought to analyze, in a small subset of US applicants, whether preference signals were associated with a higher likelihood of obtaining a residency interview. METHODS: A survey was distributed in March 2023 to US MD seniors from the four allopathic medical schools in North Carolina who applied to categorical internal medicine residency programs during the 2022-23 application cycle. The survey was developed by the research team to provide respondents with the opportunity to report data from the electronic residency application service (ERAS) application and provide data on interviews received, actions taken throughout the application season, and outcomes of the National Residency Match Program (NRMP) using a combination of free response and multiple choice questions. RESULTS: Forty-seven out of a total of 85 contacted (55%) applicants completed some or all of the survey. Of those who completed the entirety of the survey, 39 (82.98%) completed the supplemental portion of the application and the available preference signaling. Applicants in this study were 2.95 (Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.20 - 3.97, p<0.01) times as likely to receive an interview invitation from a program if they used a program signal. Applicants were 1.75 (odds ratio, 95% CI 1.38 - 2.21, p<0.01) times as likely to receive an interview invitation from a program in an indicated geographic preference division. Forty-seven percent (95% CI 31 - 64%) matched to a program they had sent a program signal to, and 97% (95% CI 78 - 100%) matched to a program in an indicated geographic preference division. CONCLUSIONS: The program signals and geographic preference division components of the supplemental application increased the likelihood of receiving an interview invitation but did not have a clear impact on match outcomes. Further research with larger sample sizes will be necessary to determine how these signals actually modify the outcomes of the NRMP.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Training of international medical graduates (IMGs) offers opportunities for the US neurosurgery community to engage the global talent pool and impact national and international healthcare. Here, the authors analyzed the time trend of IMGs matching into US neurosurgery programs and identified potential opportunities for enhancing IMG engagement. METHODS: The authors analyzed the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) match results, NRMP program director (PD) surveys, and applicant surveys from 2013 to 2022. Regression methods were used to analyze time trends. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2022, the number of US neurosurgery residency positions increased by 17.6% (from 204 to 240). During this period, the percentage of IMGs matching into neurosurgery increased from 3.5% to 7%, translating into a 6.8% increase in the likelihood of a successful IMG match per year (95% CI 0.3%-13.8%, p = 0.042). The likelihoods of a successful match for US MDs and IMGs scoring > 260 on the USMLE Step 1 were > 90% and approximately 55%, respectively. In PD surveys, approximately 90% of PDs indicated that they seldom/never interview or rank IMGs. In terms of factors that influenced the PD decision for interviewing/ranking, IMGs are disadvantaged in several categories, including the ability to secure an audition elective/rotation, and proper letters of recommendation, as well as the influence of the culture on the preconceived perception of poor interpersonal skills. CONCLUSIONS: The number of IMGs matching successfully in neurosurgery has increased marginally during the past decade. The authors outline the challenges that IMGs encounter in this process and suggest strategies for considerations of IMG training in NRMP-associated institutions.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The supplemental ERAS application that includes three components: past experiences, geographic preferences, and program signals was introduced in 2022 to complement the standard ERAS CV material. The goal was to help programs identify optimal candidates to interview and to improve the chances of applicants being invited for interviews at programs that align with their goals and interests. Based on limited data, Program signal is the most emphasized component by the programs. Applicants should realize that programs have used signals to determine who to interview (aligned with AAMC guidance), and to determine the program's candidate rank list (contrary to AAMC guidance). We have herein suggested options for leveraging benefits from the ERAS supplemental application which has now been incorporated into the full ERAS application.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Changes in residency recruitment have significantly altered how programs and applicants evaluate each other including virtual interviews, discontinuation of the United States Medical Licensing Exam Step 2 Clinical Skills exam, and transition of United States Medical Licensing Exam Step 1 to pass-fail scoring. To improve program-applicant fit, the Electronic Residency Application Service introduced supplemental application features including geographic preference, program signaling, and the opportunity to highlight impactful and meaningful experiences. We sought to evaluate child neurology (CN) and neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDD) program director's (PD) opinions regarding these changes. METHODS: A 10-question anonymous survey was sent to CN (n=75) and NDD (n=8) PDs. The questions centered on PDs' opinions regarding components of the supplemental application, having a standard application review period and in-person recruitment activities. Answer choices to the questions were all close-ended. Respondents could select questions to complete. RESULTS: Thirty-eight CN residency PDs (49%) and 4 NDD residency PDs (50%) responded to the survey. Among CN PDs, there was strong support for use of the supplemental application questions and for the use of 3 program signals per applicant. Most PDs supported a standardized application review period prior to programs sending interview offers; however, there was no consensus on the appropriate length of time. Nearly half agreed with virtual-only interviews, and 62% agreed with the option of in-person second-look visits. CONCLUSIONS: CN PDs generally support many of the recent or proposed changes to residency recruitment. The impact of these changes on recruitment will be a topic of future investigation.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The neurosurgical match is a challenging process for applicants and programs alike. Programs must narrow a wide field of applicants to interview and then determine how to rank them after limited interaction. To streamline this, programs commonly screen applicants using United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step scores. However, this approach removes nuance from a consequential decision and exacerbates existing biases. The primary objective of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of effecting minor modifications to the residency application process, as the authors have done at their institution, specifically by reducing the prominence of USMLE board scores and Alpha Omega Alpha (AΩA) status, both of which have been identified as bearing racial biases. METHODS: At the authors' institution, residents and attendings holistically reviewed applications with intentional redundancy so that every file was reviewed by two individuals. Reviewers were blinded to applicants' photographs and test scores. On interview day, the applicant was evaluated for their strength in three domains: knowledge, commitment to neurosurgery, and integrity. For rank discussions, applicants were reviewed in the order of their domain scores, and USMLE scores were unblinded. A regression analysis of the authors' rank list was made by regressing the rank list by AΩA status, Step 1 score, Step 2 score, subinternship, and total interview score. RESULTS: No variables had a significant effect on the rank list except total interview score, for which a single-point increase corresponded to a 15-position increase in rank list when holding all other variables constant (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The goal of this holistic review and domain-based interview process is to mitigate bias by shifting the focus to selected core qualities in lieu of traditional metrics. Since implementation, the authors' final rank lists have closely reflected the total interview score but were not significantly affected by board scores or AΩA status. This system allows for the removal of known sources of bias early in the process, with the aim of reducing potential downstream effects and ultimately promoting a final list that is more reflective of stated values.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background Many residency programs do not accept the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX-USA) alone for osteopathic applicants. Furthermore, among those programs that do accept the COMLEX-USA, it is unknown how programs scale their minimum COMLEX-USA scores compared to their minimum United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores. Objective Our objective was to examine the variation of relative within-program differences between minimum USMLE Step and COMLEX-USA Level scores required for consideration by United States residency programs. Methods We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access (FREIDA) database from April 2023, including the 10 specialties with the most training spots in 2022. These specialties were internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, emergency medicine, psychiatry, surgery, anesthesiology, obstetrics-gynecology, orthopedic surgery, and neurology. Within-program differences were calculated by subtracting the minimum USMLE Step 1 and 2 scores from the converted minimum USMLE Step 1 and 2 scores calculated from the minimum COMLEX-USA Level 1 and 2 scores using two conversion tools. We present differences as medians with interquartile ranges (IQR). Additionally, we report the proportion of programs with greater than 10-point differences for each step (1 and 2). Results Of the 3,364 accredited programs from the examined specialties, we included 1,477 in the Step 1 analysis and 1,227 in the Step 2 analysis with complete data. The median within-program difference between the minimum Step 1 score and the predicted Step 1 score was 12.0 (IQR 2.0, 17.0) using the Barnum and colleagues' conversion tool and -1.7 (IQR -6.2, 6.3) using the Smith and colleagues' tool. The median differences for Step 2 were 2.0 (IQR -8.0, 12.0) and -6.5 (IQR -13.9, -1.5) for each tool, respectively. Using the Barnum and Smith conversion tools, 937 (63%) and 435 (29%) programs had a greater than 10-point Step 1 score difference, respectively. Similarly, for Step 2, 564 (46%) and 515 (42%) programs had a greater than 10-point difference with each conversion tool. Conclusion There is wide variation in the within-program differences between minimum USMLE and predicted minimum USMLE (from COMLEX-USA) scores. Many programs have greater than 10-point differences, which may be a source of bias in osteopathic applicant selection.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

CONTEXT: As the number of medical school graduates continues to outpace the available residency training positions, applying for residency in the United States has become a highly competitive process, often associated with a low rate of selection and invitation for interview. The National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Program Director survey provides data assessing factors considered by Program Directors (PD) in selecting and inviting candidates for interview. Assessing the evolution of these factors over time is efficacious to inform and guide prospective applicants toward improving preparation for residency application. OBJECTIVES: We aim to synthesize NRMP data showing factors that PDs reported and rated as important in their decision to select and invite applicants for interview. METHODS: Data from residency PD surveys from 2008 to 2021 were accessed, but after applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, only the data from 2016 to 2020 were reviewed and analyzed. The NRMP survey reports provided two metrics that characterized PDs' evaluation of the residency factors for interview, namely, "percent citing factor" and "average rating" on a 0 to 5 Likert-type scale. These two metrics were combined into an aggregate measure of importance (AI), and another measure of relative importance (RI) was constructed from normalizing the AI of each individual factor to the sum of the AI within each survey year. RESULTS: The top ranked factors were United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1/Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) Level 1, Letter of Recommendation (LOR) in the specialty, Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE/Dean's Letter), and USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK)/COMLEX Level 2 Cognitive Exam (CE) score, any failed attempt in USMLE/COMLEX, and perceived commitment to specialty. Factors rising in importance were Audition Elective/Rotation Within Your Department, Personal Statement (PS), Perceived Commitment to Specialty, Perceived Interest in Program, LOR in the Specialty, Other Life Experience, and Personal Prior Knowledge of the Applicant. Factors with declining importance were Interest in Academic Career, Awards or Special Honors in Basic Sciences, Graduate of Highly Regarded US Medical School, Awards or Special Honors in Clinical Clerkships, Lack of Gaps in Medical Education, Awards or Special Honors in Clerkship in Desired Specialty, and Consistency of Grades. Compared to the 2021 PD survey, our findings show continued predictive consistency, particularly related to specialty and program commitment. CONCLUSIONS: The factors identified for the selection of medical school graduates for interview into a residency program reveal that PDs move toward a more integrated approach. Specifically, PDs are placing increasing emphasis on factors that border on subjective qualities more so than the more traditional, quantitative, and objective metrics. Medical students and educators need to continually apprise themselves of the NRMP data to inform students' preparation endeavors throughout medical school to strengthen their application portfolios and enhance their competitiveness for the matching process.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 recently transitioned to a pass/fail outcome, renewing interest in how programs select neurosurgical residents. This study investigates the association between match status and key academic metrics over time. METHODS: Data are from the National Resident Matching Program from 2009 to 2022 for matched and unmatched US allopathic (MD) seniors. Investigated metrics included the mean number of contiguous ranks; mean number of distinct specialties ranked; mean USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores; mean number of abstracts, presentations, and publications; mean number of research, work, and volunteer experiences; Alpha Omega Alpha status; attendance at a top 40 NIH-funded institution; PhD degree; and other degree. Multiple linear regression without an interaction term was used to evaluate how these have varied between the two groups during the study period and whether there is a difference between unmatched and matched MD seniors applying for a neurosurgical residency. Multiple linear regression with an interaction term was then used to test whether the difference in variables between the two groups changed over time. RESULTS: Regardless of match status, MD senior neurosurgical residency applicants exhibited an increase in USMLE Step 1 and 2 scores; average research experiences; abstracts, presentations, and publications; and work and volunteer experiences (p < 0.001). The percentage of applicants from a top 40 NIH-funded school decreased (p = 0.018), and the percentage who held an additional degree increased (p = 0.007). Between groups, there were significant differences in all categories except work experiences and other degree obtained. Over time, the difference between USMLE Step 2 scores between matched and unmatched seniors diminished (p = 0.027); in contrast, the difference in abstracts, presentations, and publications between the two groups increased over time (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: From 2009 to 2022, neurosurgical residency applicants grew in their achievements across many metrics. In the advent of Step 1 becoming pass/fail, this study suggests that Step 2 is not viewed by programs as an adequate replacement. However, the Step 1 grading transition may serve as an opportunity for other factors to be considered that may better predict success in neurosurgical residency.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Virtual interviews (VIs) for the 2020 residency application season were mandated as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to determine the perspectives of general surgery (GS) program directors (PDs) on the benefits and drawbacks of VIs. METHODS: A 14-item survey was emailed to all GS PDs from programs identified on the American Council for Graduate Medical Education website. Program directors were asked about the cost-time benefit of VIs, its ability to assess candidates, and their thoughts on the future of VIs for evaluating residency applicants. RESULTS: 60 PDs responded corresponding to a response rate of 21%. While 93% agreed/strongly agreed that VIs were less expensive, only 35% found VIs to be less time-consuming. 75% and 67%, respectively, disagreed/strongly disagreed that VIs allowed for an easier assessment of an applicant's fit, and personality and communication skills. Almost one-half of our survey respondents suggested that VIs made the selection committee rely more heavily on objective applicant data. Almost two-thirds of GS PDs suggested that they would adopt both VI and in-person interview formats for future application cycles. The median [interquartile range] cost saved through the implementation of VIs was US$ 4500 [1625 - 10 000]. CONCLUSION: Remarkably, VIs have been swiftly imbibed by all residency programs and many aspects of the VI experience were positive. While MATCH 2021 has definitely proved to be one of its kind, the implementation of VIs has been met with overall broad success and a promising future awaits this novel modality of resident selection to GME programs in the United States.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Surgery residency applications include variables that determine an individual's rank on a program's match list. We performed this study to determine which residency application variables are the most impactful in creating our program's rank order list. METHODS: We completed a retrospective examination of all interviewed applicants for the 2019 match. We recorded United States Medical Licensing Examinations (USMLE) step I and II scores, class quartile rank from the Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE), Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership, geographic region, surgery clerkship grade, and grades on other clerkships. The MSPE and letters of recommendation were reviewed by two of the authors and assigned a score of 1 to 3, where 1 was weak and 3 was strong. The same two authors reviewed the assessments from each applicant's interview and assigned a score from 1-5, where 1 was poor and 5 was excellent. Univariate analysis was performed, and the significant variables were used to construct an adjusted multivariate model with significance measured at P < .05. RESULTS: Univariate analysis for all 92 interviewed applicants demonstrated that USMLE step 2 scores (P = .002), class quartile rank (P = .004), AOA status (P = .014), geographic location (P < .001), letters of recommendation (P < .001), and interview rating (P < .001) were significant in predicting an applicant's position on the rank list. On multivariate analysis only USMLE step 2 (P = .018) and interview (P < .001) remained significant. CONCLUSION: USMLE step 2 and an excellent interview were the most important factors in constructing our rank order list. Applicants with a demonstrated strong clinical fund of knowledge that develop a rapport with our faculty and residents receive the highest level of consideration for our program.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 2020 to 2021 Otolaryngology residency application cycle in the context of recent trends. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective data analysis. SETTING: Disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic may significantly alter trends among residency applicants, especially in highly competitive and/or smaller specialties. METHODS: Applicant and residency statistics from Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) and National Residency Matching Program (NRMP) were extracted from the 2016 to 2021 and 2011 to 2021, respectively. Trends in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (OHNS) were compared to peer specialties (PS) including Dermatology, Neurological Surgery, Orthopedic Surgery, and Integrated Pathway for Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS). The ratio of the number of applicants per positions (APP) was used to reflect the degree of competition. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2021, the number of OHNS programs and positions expanded less than those of PS and General Surgery. The increase in the APP ratio was significantly greater for OHNS compared to those Dermatology, Orthopedic Surgery, General Surgery and all PGY1 residency positions for both US MD and all applicants (P < .01 for each). OHNS expansion of US MD (P = .046), but not all applicants (P = .169), outgrew that of Neurosurgery. CONCLUSION: The 2020 to 2021 cycle affected by the COVID-19 pandemic saw a continuation of the recent trend in the expanding OHNS applicant pool. OHNS remains one of the specialties with the highest APP ratio and has observed a significant growth compared to PS since 2018. Understanding and anticipating trends in residency application cycles is critical for designing processes to optimize the best fit between applicants and programs.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate trends, qualifications, race/ethnicity, and gender of applicants to integrated cardiothoracic (CT I-6) residency programs and compare them with other competitive surgical subspecialties. METHODS: Data were collected from the National Residency Matching Program, Electronic Residency Application Service, and Association of American Medical Colleges for thoracic surgery, orthopedic surgery, neurological surgery, otolaryngology (ENT), plastic surgery, and vascular surgery for 2010 t0 2020. Applicant gender, race/ethnicity, Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership, United States Medical Licensing Examination scores, research productivity, and graduation from a top-40 medical school were analyzed. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2020, CT I-6 experienced growth in postgraduate year 1 positions (280.0%), total applicants (62.2%), and US senior applicants (59.2%). No growth in CT I-6 positions (38) or programs (29) occurred from 2016 to 2020. CT I-6 had the lowest match rates among total applicants (31.7%) and US seniors (41.0%) in 2020. CT I-6 had fewer female applicants compared with ENT (P < .001) and plastic surgery (P < .001), but more than orthopedic surgery (P < .001). Although most CT I-6 US applicants self-identified as White (75.0%), there were more Asian applicants compared with applicants for orthopedic surgery (P < .001), ENT (P < .001), plastic surgery (P < .001), and neurological surgery (P < .01). Matched applicants averaged the highest Step 2-Clinical Knowledge scores (255.1), AOA membership (48.5%), and graduation rates from top-40 medical schools (54.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite tremendous growth in positions, CT I-6 has consistently been the most difficult surgical subspecialty to match. CT I-6 has recently attracted an increasingly diverse applicant pool. For the 2019 to 2020 National Residency Matching Program Match Cycle, successful applicants had the highest Step 2-Clinical Knowledge scores, AOA membership rates, and graduation rates from a top-40 medical school among all surgical subspecialties examined.

Asunto(s)