Program Signaling in Emergency Medicine: The 2022-2023 Program Director Experience.

Introduction: Program signaling (PS), which enables residency applicants to signal their preference for a specific program, was introduced in emergency medicine (EM) in the 2022-2023 residency application cycle. In this study we evaluated EM program directors' (PD) utilization of PS in application review and ranking. This study also explores the relationship between program characteristics and number of signals received as well as the relative importance and utilization of signals related to the number of signals received. Methods: This is an institutional review board-approved, cross-sectional study of PDs at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited EM residency programs. We used descriptive statistics to describe the characteristics of residency programs and practices around PS. Measures of central tendency and dispersion summarized continuous variables. We used chi-square analysis or the Fisher exact test for comparisons between groups for categorical variables. Comparisons for continuous variables were made using the t-test for independent samples or analysis of variance. Results: The response rate was 41% (n = 113/277 EM programs). Most programs participated in PS (n = 261/277 EM programs, 94.2%). Mean number of signals received was 60 (range 2-203). Signals received varied based on program characteristics including geographic location and program type, duration, environment, and longevity. Most used PS in holistic review (52.2%), but other uses varied by proportion of applications that were signaled. The importance of PS in application review (mean 2.9; 1-5 scale, 1 = not important, 5 = extremely important) and rank list preparation (2.1) was relatively low compared to other application elements such as standardized letters of evaluation (4.97 for review, 4.90 for ranking). Conclusion: The study provides insights into PS utilization in EM's inaugural year. We have identified patterns of signal use based on program characteristics and number of signals received that can inform signal allocation and utilization on an individual applicant and program level. A more nuanced understanding of signal use can provide valuable insight as the specialty of EM grapples with fluctuations in its applicant numbers and shifting demographics of its applicant pool.

Advising special population emergency medicine residency applicants: a survey of emergency medicine advisors and residency program leadership.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine the advising and emergency medicine (EM) residency selection practices for special population applicant groups for whom traditional advice may not apply. METHODS: A survey was distributed on the Council of Residency Directors in EM and Clerkship Directors in EM Academy listservs. Multiple choice, Likert-type scale, and fill-in-the-blank questions addressed the average EM applicant and special population groups (osteopathic; international medical graduate (IMG); couples; at-risk; re-applicant; dual-accreditation applicant; and military). Percentages and 95% confidence intervals [CI] were calculated. RESULTS: One hundred four surveys were completed. Of respondents involved in the interview process, 2 or more standardized letters of evaluation (SLOEs) were recommended for osteopathic (90.1% [95% CI 84-96]), IMG (82.5% [73-92]), dual-accreditation (46% [19-73]), and average applicants (48.5% [39-58]). Recommendations for numbers of residency applications to submit were 21-30 (50.5% [40.7-60.3]) for the average applicant, 31-40 (41.6% [31.3-51.8]) for osteopathic, and > 50 (50.9% [37.5-64.4]) for IMG. For below-average Step 1 performance, 56.0% [46.3-65.7] were more likely to interview with an average Step 2 score. 88.1% [81.8-94.4] will consider matching an EM-EM couple. The majority were more likely to interview a military applicant with similar competitiveness to a traditional applicant. Respondents felt the best option for re-applicants was to pursue the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) for a preliminary residency position. CONCLUSION: Advising and residency selection practices for special population applicants differ from those of traditional EM applicants. These data serve as an important foundation for advising these distinct applicant groups in ways that were previously only speculative. While respondents agree on many advising recommendations, outliers exist.