Relationship Between Residency Match Distance From Medical School and Virtual Application, School Characteristics, and Specialty Competitiveness.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the residency match process by eliminating away rotations and changing from in-person to virtual interviews. In this study, we explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the geographic match distance of United States (US) senior medical students across all specialties. METHODS: We collected publicly available student match data between 2018 and 2021 from US allopathic medical schools and calculated match distance between medical school and residency training using a novel metric - the "match space." Match space was codified by whether the student matched at their home institution, home state, adjacent state, same or adjacent US census division (non-adjacent state) or skipped at least one US census division. Adjusting for covariates, ordinal logistic regression correlated school and specialty characteristics with match distance pre- and post-pandemic for all specialties. We defined and ranked specialty competitiveness using predictive values from factor analysis. RESULTS: A total of 34,672 students representing 66 medical schools from 28 states matched into 26 specialties in 50 states and Canada. Fifty-nine percent of students were from public institutions, and 27% of schools ranked in the top 40 for research. The mean percentage of in-state students by school was 60.3% (range 3-100%). Match space was lower after the pandemic (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.98; p=0.006), from schools with higher in-state percentages (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.72-0.76), from top National Institutes of Health-funded institutions (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.85-0.92), from the Northeast (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.67-0.75; Midwest reference), and the West (OR 0.67, 95% 0.60-0.74). Match space was higher for students graduating from private schools (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05-1.19), from the South (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.2-1.33), and matching into more competitive specialties (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02-1.14). The top five most competitive specialties were Plastic Surgery, Neurosurgery, Dermatology, Orthopedic Surgery, and Otolaryngology. Internal Medicine ranked eighth. CONCLUSIONS: After the COVID-19 pandemic, students graduating from US allopathic schools matched closer to their home institution. Students attending public schools, schools with more in-state matriculants, and schools with higher research rankings also matched closer to their home institutions. Specialty competitiveness and US census region also impacted match distance. Our study adds insight into how geographic match patterns were influenced by school, specialty choice, and the pandemic.

Real-world integration of the protocol for responding to and assessing patients' assets, risks, and experiences tool to assess social determinants of health in the electronic medical record at an academic medical center.

Objective: To describe the real-world deployment of a tool, the Protocol for Responding to and Assessing Patients' Assets, Risks, and Experiences (PRAPARE), to assess social determinants of health (SDoH) in an electronic medical record (EMR). Methods: We employed the collection of the PRAPARE tool in the EMR of a large academic health system in the ambulatory clinic and emergency department setting. After integration, we evaluated SDoH prevalence, levels of missingness, and data anomalies to inform ongoing collection. We summarized responses using descriptive statistics and hand-reviewed data text fields and patterns in the data. Data on patients who were administered with the PRAPARE from February to December 2020 were extracted from the EMR. Patients missing ≥ 12 PRAPARE questions were excluded. Social risks were screened using the PRAPARE. Information on demographics, admittance status, and health coverage were extracted from the EMR. Results: Assessments with N = 6531 were completed (mean age 54 years, female (58.6%), 43.8% Black). Missingness ranged from 0.4% (race) to 20.8% (income). Approximately 6% of patients were homeless; 8% reported housing insecurity; 1.4% reported food needs; 14.6% had healthcare needs; 8.4% needed utility assistance; and 5% lacked transportation related to medical care. Emergency department patients reported significantly higher proportions of suboptimal SDoH. Conclusions: Integrating the PRAPARE assessment in the EMR provides valuable information on SDoH amenable to intervention, and strategies are needed to increase accurate data collection and to improve the use of data in the clinical encounter.

Impact of Virtual Interviewing on Geographic Placement for Cardiology Fellowship Recruitment.

Background Virtual interviewing for cardiology fellowship was instituted in the 2021 fellowship application cycle because of the COVID-19 pandemic and restricted travel. The impact on geographic patterns of fellow-training program matching is unknown. This study sought to determine if there was a difference in geographic placement of matched fellows for cardiology fellowship match after initiation of virtual interviews compared with in-person interviewing. Methods and Results All US-based accredited cardiovascular disease fellowship programs that participated in the 2019 to 2021 fellowship match cycles and had publicly available data with fellowship and residency training locations and training year were included. Each fellow was categorized based on whether their fellowship and residency programs were in the same institution, same state, same US census region, or different census region. Categories were mutually exclusive. Of 236 eligible programs, 118 (50%) programs were identified, composed of 1787 matched fellows. Compared with the previrtual cohort (n=1178 matched fellows), there was no difference in the geographic placement during the 2021 virtual cycle (n=609 matched fellows) (P=0.19), including the proportion matched at the same program (30.6% versus 31.5%), same state but different program (13% versus 13.8%), same region but different state (24.2% versus 19.7%), or different region (35% versus 33.1%). There was also no difference when stratified by program size or geographic region. Conclusions The use of virtual interviewing in the 2021 cardiology fellowship application cycle showed no significant difference in the geographic placement of matched fellows compared with in-person interviewing. Further study is needed to evaluate the impact of virtual interviewing and optimize its use in fellowship recruitment.

Exploring Match Space: How Medical School and Specialty Characteristics Affect Residency Match Geography in the United States.

PURPOSE: To explore how school and specialty characteristics impact the geographic match location of U.S. senior medical students. METHOD: The authors collected student match data between 2018 and 2020 from U.S. MD-granting medical schools and calculated the distance between students' medical schools and residency training programs. They use the term "match space" to describe this distance. Match space was codified on a 5-point ordinal scale by where the student matched: 1 = home institution, 2 = home state, 3 = an adjacent state, 4 = the same or adjacent U.S. Census division (and not adjacent state), and 5 = skipped at least one U.S. Census division. Ordinal logistic regression correlated school and specialty characteristics with match space. RESULTS: During the study period, 26,102 medical students, representing 66 medical schools from 28 states, matched in 23 specialties. Fifty-nine percent of students were from public institutions, and 27% of schools ranked in the top 40 of National Institutes of Health (NIH) research funding. The match space was higher for students graduating from private institutions (odds ratio [OR] 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06 to 1.22) and matching into more competitive specialties (OR 1.07; 95% CI, 1 to 1.14). The match space was lower for students graduating from top NIH-funded institutions (OR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85 to 0.94) and from schools with a higher percentage of in-state matriculants (OR 0.75; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: School characteristics such as region, public/private designation, NIH funding, and percentage of in-state students were associated with residency match geography. Matching into more competitive specialties also showed a marginal increase in match distance. These findings suggest that a student's choice of specialty and medical school may impact subsequent geographic placement for residency training, which should be considered by students and residency programs alike.

The Impact of Internal Medicine Clerkship Characteristics and NBME Subject Exams on USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge Exam Performance.

BACKGROUND: Residency program directors will likely emphasize the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 2 clinical knowledge (CK) exam more during residency application given the recent USMLE Step 1 transition to pass/fail scoring. We examined how internal medicine clerkship characteristics and NBME subject exam scores affect USMLE Step 2 CK performance. DESIGN: The authors used univariable and multivariable generalized estimating equations to determine associations between Step 2 CK performance and internal medicine clerkship characteristics and NBME subject exams. The sample had 21,280 examinees' first Step 2 CK scores for analysis. RESULTS: On multivariable analysis, Step 1 performance (standardized ß = 0.45, p < .001) and NBME medicine subject exam performance (standardized ß = 0.40, p < .001) accounted for approximately 60% of the variance in Step 2 CK performance. Students who completed the internal medicine clerkship last in the academic year scored lower on Step 2 CK (Mdiff = -3.17 p < .001). Students who had a criterion score for passing the NBME medicine subject exam scored higher on Step 2 CK (Mdiff = 1.10, p = .03). There was no association between Step 2 CK performance and other internal medicine clerkship characteristics (all p > 0.05) nor with the total NBME subject exams completed (ß=0.05, p = .78). CONCLUSION: Despite similarities between NBME subject exams and Step 2 CK, the authors did not identify improved Step 2 CK performance for students who had more NBME subject exams. The lack of association of Step 2 CK performance with many internal medicine clerkship characteristics and more NBME subject exams has implications for future clerkship structure and summative assessment. The improved Step 2 CK performance in students that completed their internal medicine clerkship earlier warrants further study given the anticipated increase in emphasis on Step 2 CK.

Are We Measuring What Matters? How Student and Clerkship Characteristics Influence Clinical Grading.

PURPOSE: Given the growing emphasis placed on clerkship performance for residency selection, clinical evaluation and its grading implications are critically important; therefore, the authors conducted this study to determine which evaluation components best predict a clinical honors recommendation across 3 core clerkships. METHOD: Student evaluation data were collected during academic years 2015-2017 from the third-year internal medicine (IM), pediatrics, and surgery clerkships at the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine. The authors used factor analysis to examine 12 evaluation components (12 items), and they applied multilevel logistic regression to correlate evaluation components with a clinical honors recommendation. RESULTS: Of 3,947 completed evaluations, 1,508 (38%) recommended clinical honors. The top item that predicted a clinical honors recommendation was clinical reasoning skills for IM (odds ratio [OR] 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9 to 4.2; P < .001), presentation skills for surgery (OR 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6 to 4.2; P < .001), and knowledge application for pediatrics (OR 4.8; 95% CI, 2.8 to 8.2; P < .001). Students who spent more time with their evaluators were more likely to receive clinical honors (P < .001), and residents were more likely than faculty to recommend clinical honors (P < .001). Of the top 5 evaluation items associated with clinical honors, 4 composed a single factor for all clerkships: clinical reasoning, knowledge application, record keeping, and presentation skills. CONCLUSIONS: The 4 characteristics that best predicted a clinical honors recommendation in all disciplines (clinical reasoning, knowledge application, record keeping, and presentation skills) correspond with traditional definitions of clinical competence. Structural components, such as contact time with evaluators, also correlated with a clinical honors recommendation. These findings provide empiric insight into the determination of clinical honors and the need for heightened attention to structural components of clerkships and increased scrutiny of evaluation rubrics.

What Defines an Honors Student? Survey of Pediatric and Internal Medicine Faculty Perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: Although considerable emphasis is placed on the attainment of honors in core medical school clerkships, little is known about what student characteristics are used by attending physicians to earn this designation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate what values and characteristics that attending physicians consider important in the evaluation of Pediatrics and Internal Medicine clerkship students for clinical honors designation. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey study was framed around Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) competencies. It was administered at three tertiary care hospitals associated with one large medical school in an urban setting. Teaching ward attendings in Pediatrics and Internal Medicine who evaluated third-year medical students between 2013 and 2016 were surveyed. RESULTS: Overall, Pediatric and Internal Medicine faculty demonstrated close agreement in which competencies were most important in designating clinical honors. Both groups believed that professionalism was the most important factor and that systems-based practice and patient care were among the least important factors. The only competency with a significant difference between the two groups was systems-based practice, with Internal Medicine placing more emphasis on the coordination of patient care and understanding social determinants of health. CONCLUSIONS: Professionalism, communication skills, and medical knowledge are the most important characteristics when determining clinical honors on Pediatrics and Internal Medicine clerkships.

Which Student Characteristics Are Most Important in Determining Clinical Honors in Clerkships? A Teaching Ward Attending Perspective.

PURPOSE: To explore faculty perspectives on which characteristics of high-performing clerkship students are most important when determining an honors or top grade designation for clinical performance. METHOD: In 2016-2017, the authors surveyed faculty (teaching ward attendings) for internal medicine clerkships and 1 pediatrics clerkship in inpatient settings at 5 U.S. academic medical centers. Survey items were framed around competencies, 24 student characteristics, and attitudes toward evaluation. Factor analysis examined constructs defining high-performing students. RESULTS: Of 516 faculty invited, 319 (62%) responded. The top 5 characteristics as rated by respondents were taking ownership, clinical reasoning, curiosity, dependability, and high ethical standards (in descending order). Twenty-one characteristics fit into 3 factors (Cronbach alpha, 0.81-0.87). Clinical reasoning did not fit into a factor. Factor 1 was the most important (mean rating, 8.7/10 [95% confidence interval (CI), 8.6-8.8]). It included professionalism components (ownership, curiosity, dependability, high ethical standards), presentation and interviewing skills, seeking feedback, and documentation. Factor 2 (mean, 7.9 [95% CI, 7.7-8.0]) included aspects of teamwork and communication, such as positive attitude and comments from others. Factor 3 (mean, 7.6 [95% CI, 7.4-7.7]) addressed systems-based thinking, including patient safety and care transitions. CONCLUSIONS: Professionalism components, clinical reasoning, and curiosity were among the most important characteristics distinguishing high-performing clerkship students. These may represent behaviors that are highly valued, observable, and relevant to training stage. Improved definition of the characteristics associated with clinical honors would assist students, faculty, and residency program directors when interpreting clinical performance within core clerkships.

Identifying High-Performing Students in Inpatient Clerkships: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: Examine fundamental behaviors and characteristics that attending physicians in inpatient settings utilize to identify high-performing clerkship students. METHODS: We employed written comment data from a cross-sectional survey of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics attending physicians at a single academic medical center in the southern USA. Free-text responses regarding factors that faculty consider when assigning honors grades were analyzed by four trained researchers (interrater agreement 0.87) using conventional content analysis to identify themes. RESULTS: Seventy-nine of 141 (56%) attending physicians who were surveyed provided 90 comments.Four major theme areas for recognizing higher performing clerkship students were identified: Taking Ownership of Patient Care (35%), Medical Knowledge and Clinical Reasoning (20%), Team Orientation (15%), and Awareness of Opportunities for Growth and Progress (13%). CONCLUSION: Internal Medicine and Pediatric attending physicians identified characteristics that contributed to four themes in the determination of a high-performing medical student. These findings are particularly salient, as they highlight that commitment to patients, application of clinical knowledge and skills, teamwork, and awareness of growth and progress are valued by attending physicians for identifying top performing students in inpatient settings.