Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine as Plastic Surgery Residents: Demographics, Credentials, and Pathways to Residency.

OBJECTIVE: Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (DOs) are sparsely represented within plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) and recent changes including the elimination of step 1 scoring have further disadvantaged DO applicants. The demographics, degrees, and scholarly output of DO PRS trainees were compared to that of Doctors of Medicine (MDs) to identify areas of focus which could be used to increase competitiveness of DO applications. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was created, including ACGME-accredited PRS program trainees during the 2020 to 2021 academic year. DO and MD trainee demographics and scholarly accomplishments were compared using t-test and chi-squared analysis. SETTING: Web-based publicly available information was collected for subjects. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1092 PRS MD and DO trainees were identified. DOs made up only 2.7% (n = 30) and MDs made up 97.3% (n = 1062). RESULTS: More DOs trained in independent programs (63.3%) than integrated (36.7%) compared to MDs (88.2% v. 11.8%, p < 0.001) and more DOs trained at lower ranked PRS programs (60.0% of DOs and 18.1% of MDs trained at Q4 programs, p < 0.001). DOs had fewer publications (median, IQR: 1, [0-2]) compared to MDs (3, [1-8]), fewer citations (0, [0-6]) vs. (10, [1-56]) and lower H-index (1, [0-1]) vs. (1, [1-3]). CONCLUSION: DO candidates should consider research years in the field of PRS and optimize clinical experience opportunities to increase the competitiveness of their PRS applications. Special attention should be paid to providing networking and research opportunities to DOs who lack home institutions.

Termination of the USMLE Step 2 CS: Perspectives of Surgical Residents with Diverse Medical Backgrounds.

As the decision to permanently suspend the USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skills exam resonates across the medical education landscape, it has different implications for the graduates of American allopathic (US-MD), osteopathic (DO) medical schools and international medical graduates (IMGs). Through this perspective, we as authors who represent each of these three diverse cohorts highlight the changes that resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic and delve into the multitude of ramifications that could ensue as a result of this decision. Our propositions are geared towards a standardized objective structured clinical examination for evaluating US-MDs and DOs, and a call for novel evaluation strategies to assure the minimum clinical standards of IMGs.