Evaluating the Influence of Research on Match Success for Osteopathic and Allopathic Applicants to Residency Programs.

CONTEXT: Analyzing factors that may enhance osteopathic applicants' likelihood of matching is warranted given that United States osteopathic and allopathic residency programs will have a single accreditation system in 2020. OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of research accomplishments and experiences on osteopathic and allopathic residency matching. METHODS: Analysis of variance, t test, and odds ratios were used to examine data from the National Resident Matching Program Charting Outcomes from 2016 and 2018. Relationships between match status and medical degree, specialty matching, and mean numbers of research accomplishments and experiences in the Main Residency Match were analyzed. RESULTS: Matched osteopathic and allopathic applicants had significantly greater numbers of research accomplishments (mean [SD], 5.18 [4.34]) than unmatched applicants (3.66 [2.87]) (P=.006). Applicants who matched (mean [SD], 2.81 [1.64]) had similar numbers of research experiences to those who did not match (2.43 [1.26]) (P=.068). Matched and unmatched allopathic applicants' research accomplishments (5.91 [3.72]) were significantly greater than that of osteopathic applicants (2.60 [2.90]) (P<.001). Significant differences also were found between the means of research experiences of matched and unmatched osteopathic (mean [SD], 1.73 [1.21]) and allopathic applicants (3.36 [1.25], P<.001). Matched and unmatched osteopathic applicants' had similar means for research accomplishments (mean [SD], 3.00 [3.64] and 2.20 [1.84], respectively; P=.242) and experiences (1.79 [1.31] and 1.66 [1.12], respectively; P=.664). By contrast, significant differences were found between the numbers of research accomplishments for matched (mean [SD], 6.97 [4.07]) vs unmatched (4.86 [3.02]) allopathic applicants (P=.007). The only subspecialty for which research experiences of osteopathic applicants correlated with matching was physical medicine and rehabilitation (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.30-5.84). CONCLUSION: Research seems to have a greater influence on matching for allopathic than osteopathic applicants. Although both osteopathic and allopathic programs have standards pertaining to scholarly activity, allopathic medical schools may place a greater emphasis on research. Increasing osteopathic medical students' exposure to research is predicted to enhance their competitiveness for matching and help develop skills relevant to the practice of evidence-based medicine.

Development and Validation of a Tool to Measure Patient Assessment of Clinical Compassion.

Importance: Clinician compassion is a vital element of health care quality. Currently, there appears to be no validated and feasible method for health care organizations to measure patient assessment of clinician compassion on a large scale. Objective: To develop and validate a tool for measuring patient assessment of clinician compassion that can be used in conjunction with the Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CG-CAHPS) survey. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study took place from June 1 to August 30, 2018, at a US academic health care system among a pilot cohort consisting of 3325 adult patients and a validation cohort consisting of 3483 adult patients, both of whom had an outpatient clinic visit and completed the CG-CAHPS survey. Main Outcomes and Measurements: After a comprehensive literature review, 12 candidate survey items were developed. Face and construct validity were performed. Candidate items were disseminated to patients in conjunction with the CG-CAHPS survey in a series of 2 studies: (1) exploratory factor analysis in one cohort to determine the factor structure and the most parsimonious set of items; and (2) validity testing in a second cohort using confirmatory factor analysis. Reliability was tested using Cronbach α. Convergent validity was tested with patient assessment of clinician communication and overall satisfaction questions from CG-CAHPS survey. Results: Overall, 6493 patient responses were analyzed. The mean (SD) age was 60 (15) years, 4239 patients (65.3%) were women, and 5079 (78.2%) were white. Exploratory factor analyses identified a 5-item compassion measure to be the most parsimonious. Confirmatory factor analyses found good fit. The compassion measure demonstrated good internal consistency (α = 0.94) and convergent validity (clinician communication: ρ = 0.44; overall satisfaction: ρ = 0.52) but reflected a patient experience domain (compassionate care) distinct from what is currently captured in the CG-CAHPS survey. Conclusions and Relevance: A simple 5-item tool to measure patient assessment of clinician compassion was developed and validated for use in conjunction with CG-CAHPS survey.