Applicant Perception and Content Exploration of the 2024 podiatric Residency Interview Process.

Considerable resources are dedicated on an annual basis to the podiatric medicine and surgery residency interview by both students and programs. Despite this, relatively little is known about student perception of the process, nor the format and content of interview. The objective of this investigation was to study and organize experiences of fourth-year podiatric medical students following the 2024 Centralized Residency Interview Program (CRIP) process. An anonymous and voluntary survey was developed and made available to fourth year podiatric medical students. It was relatively common for there to be academic, social/personal, case work-up, and rapid-fire academic question components to the interview. It was also very common to be provided with the opportunity to ask programs questions. It was relatively uncommon for there to be ethical/moral questions, personality/psychologic assessments, logic assessments, and hands-on demonstrations. The most common hands-on demonstrations were suturing, hand ties and performance of fixation principles. Relatively high yield academic topics included plain film radiography interpretation, rearfoot/ankle osseous trauma, diabetic foot infection, advanced imaging interpretation, and fixation constructs/principles. When evaluating programs, students placed high value on surgical volume, surgical variety, relative resident autonomy, program location, exposure to outpatient clinics, salary, future connections as a program alumnus, unique off-service rotations, exposure to business management/coding/billing, scope of practice, exposure to inpatient management, resident salary, and who the senior co-residents would be. The results of this investigation provide unique information for both medical students and residency programs with respect to the perception, format and content of the podiatric residency interview process.

Orthopedic Surgery Residency Program Rankings and Gender Diversity.

Background Orthopedic surgery residency programs are some of the least gender-diverse specialty programs in medicine. Despite strong representation at the undergraduate and medical school levels and increased applications to orthopedic surgery residency programs by women, there is still a substantial gender gap at the resident level. This study explores the relationship between the gender diversity of orthopedic surgery residency programs and program rankings. Methodology Program rank, program director gender identity, and gender diversity data were collected for the top 100 programs by reputation in Doximity. Gender diversity was measured as the proportion of female residents in the program and alumni. Results The greatest percentage of women in a program was 33% and the smallest was 3%. After linear regression analysis, we found that there was a statistically significant positive correlation between program rank and the proportion of women. The higher ranked a program was, the greater the proportion of women. There was no significant correlation between program director gender, appointment year, and program rank. Conclusions These results suggest that, although there is still a long way to go before closing the gender gap in orthopedic surgery residency programs, higher-ranked programs are associated with greater gender diversity than their lower-ranked counterparts.

Analysis of Publication Productivity and Academic Rank of Ophthalmology Residency Program Directors in the United States.

PURPOSE: Female ophthalmologists are underrepresented in the field of ophthalmology. This study aimed to analyze the gender differences among ophthalmology residency program directors (PDs) in the United States with respect to academic rank, number of publications, and h-index. METHODS: This cross-sectional study evaluated 120 ophthalmology residency PDs from 120 ophthalmology residency programs during the 2022 San Francisco Match. The gender information was collected from institutional websites. The information regarding the state of each institute, academic rank, degree (MD or DO), age, and publication productivity was also recorded. RESULTS: From the 120 residency programs, 120 ophthalmology residency PDs were identified. Most PDs had an MD degree (118 out of 120, 98.3%), while only a few had a DO degree (2 out of 120, 1.7%). Only 31 (25.8%) out of 120 residency PDs were female. There was a statistically significant difference between female residency PDs and male residency PDs (p<0.0001). Male PDs had a higher h-index (15.2 ± 1.2) compared to their female counterparts (11.9 ± 0.97) (p=0.003). Regarding academic rank, male PD number was higher in each category, including assistant professor, associate professor, and full professor. CONCLUSIONS: United States ophthalmology residency programs have a smaller portion of females compared to male PDs. Furthermore, full professors are more likely to be male, and males have higher publication productivity in terms of h-index. To promote equality among ophthalmologists, future initiatives should focus on addressing the gender disparities in ophthalmology residency programs and the selection of residency PDs.

Social Media Use by Residents and Faculty in Otolaryngology Training Programs.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the growth of social media in healthcare, the appropriateness of online friendships between otolaryngological residents and attendings is poorly defined in the current literature. This issue is of growing importance, particularly as residency programs increasingly utilize social media as a means of connecting with and evaluating applicants due to limited in-person experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our objective was to better understand the prevalence of and concerns surrounding social media use between residents and faculty. METHODS: This study sent out 2 surveys in 2017 to all United States Otolaryngology residency program directors to disperse to their residents and attendings, respectively. RESULTS: We received a response from 72 residents and 98 attendings. Our findings show that social media is commonly used by both residents and attendings, and most residents have at least 1 online friendship with an attending. Resident and attending opinions diverge on topics such as appropriateness of use, privacy settings, and professionalism. CONCLUSIONS: We call on residency programs to delineate a transparent social media policy so applicant expectations on social media are clear.

Expected Impact of the Pass/Fail Scoring System for USMLE Step 1 on the Plastic Surgery Residency Selection Process: A National Survey of Plastics Program Directors.

BACKGROUND:  Traditionally, the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 3-digit score has been used as a metric to stratify plastic surgery residency candidates. The transition to a pass/fail exam may impact the manner in which integrated plastic surgery residency program directors (PS-RPD) evaluate candidates. It may also limit opportunities for applicants to differentiate themselves from their counterparts. METHODS: A 14-question survey was distributed via email to 76 PS-RPDs collected from the American Medical Association (AMA) residency program site, FRIEDA. It was sent three times from March 3 - March 14, 2020. McNemar tests were performed on the current metrics of evaluation in comparison to metrics expected to be used in the absence of a 3-digit Step 1 score, assuming a P < 0.05 level for statistical significance.  Results: Of the 76 integrated plastics programs surveyed, 24 PS-RPDs responded (31.6% response rate); 91.3% of PS-RPDs strongly disagree or disagree that Step 1 should be pass/fail; 78.3% of PS-RPDs strongly disagree or disagree that diversity will increase. The top five evaluation metrics PS-RPDs expect to utilize following the transition to pass/fail are: letters of recommendation (87.0%; CI 72% - 100%; p=0.500), Step 2 score (78.3%; CI 60% - 96%; p=0.001), research (56.5%; CI 35% - 78%; p=0.125), elective rotation (56.5%; CI 35% - 78%; p=1.000), and personal knowledge of the applicant (52.2%; CI 30% - 74%; p=0.500).  Conclusions: In the absence of a Step 1 score, PS-RPDs may require more holistic metric(s) to evaluate the best fit for their program. This study found that PS-RPDs expect their candidate evaluation process to remain highly similar with the only statistically significant change being an increased emphasis on the candidate's Step 2 score.

Will Residency Program Directors Look at My United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 Score During the 2022-2023 Application Cycle? A National Survey of Program Directors.

Background The 2022-2023 residency match cycle will be the first cycle that program directors will have to consider some applicants with a numerical United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score while other applicants will only report pass/fail for USMLE Step 1. Previous studies have explored how USMLE Step 1 becoming pass/fail will alter the residency selection process, but it is not yet known when program directors from each specialty expect those changes to be implemented. Methods Residency program director's contact information was extracted from the American Medical Association (AMA) residency program site, Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA). Of the 5190 programs, 4877 were determined eligible for this study of which 1274 (26.8%) responded. Results Of the 1274 US residency program directors included in this survey, 77.0% do not intend to adjust their usage of USMLE Step 1 as a metric in candidate evaluation until the score is no longer reported. Conclusion Residency candidates applying during the upcoming cycle can expect the majority of residency programs will not significantly alter their previous utilization of an applicant's USMLE Step 1 score during the current 2022-2023 residency match cycle.

Does Chair of Surgery Gender Influence Divisional or Residency Program Director Gender Diversity?

BACKGROUND: Workplace diversity is beneficial and results in new ideas and improved performance. Within surgery leadership, the gender gap is improving, but still present. Given the increasing number of women surgery department chairs, we aimed to examine the association of surgery chair gender with division and residency program director gender. We hypothesized that surgery departments with female leadership would have an increase in gender diversity compared to departments led by male chairs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A list of all surgery departments were compiled from the Society of Surgical Chairs website. Gender of department chair, division director and residency program director were examined and compared. Chair position term length was determined based on online public announcements, publicly available curriculum vitae, and institutional profile biographies. RESULTS: Of 178 department chairs included, 10.7% were female, and 89.3% were male. There was no difference in female residency program director leadership between female versus male led programs (42.1 versus 26.1%, P= 0.147). Of the programs with female department chairs, only 29.4% had any female division directors compared to 54.6% led by male chairs (P= 0.055). When examining departments with ≥5 division directors, there was no difference in the average number of female division directors within departments led by female versus male chairs. There was a significant difference in length of surgery chairship, with female chairs holding the position for fewer years than male chairs (median time 5.3 (IQR = 3.4-5.8) versus 7.0 (IQR=4.3-12.3) years, P= 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: Female department chair leadership was not associated with increased diversity in divisional leadership compared to departments of surgery led by males.

Pass/Fail USMLE Step 1 Scoring-A Radiology Program Director Survey.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: In February 2020, administrators for the US medical licensing examination (USMLE) announced that Step 1 reporting would change to pass/fail in hopes of reducing the overemphasis of USMLE performance on the residency selection system and improving medical student well-being. Our objective was to determine the perspectives of diagnostic radiology (DR), interventional radiology (IR), and nuclear medicine (NM) program directors (PDs) regarding pass/fail USMLE Step 1 scoring. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey composed of thirteen questions on a three-point Likert scale, five demographic questions, and a free-text question was distributed to 179 DR, 84 IR, and 34 NM PDs from ACGME-accredited residency programs. RESULTS: In total, 140 unique responses were obtained (response rate = 47.1%). The PD respondents had a male predominance of 79.1%, average age of 46 ± 7.2 years, and average tenure of 5.9 ± 5.2 years. A majority of PDs (69.6%) disagreed that the change is a good idea, and a minority (21.6%) believe the change will improve medical student well-being. Further, 90.7% of PDs believe a pass/fail format will make it more difficult to objectively compare applicants and most will place more emphasis on USMLE Step 2 scores and medical school reputation (89.3% and 72.7%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The lasting impact of pass/fail Step 1 scoring are uncertain and many radiology PDs do not support this change. While the central motivations to reduce the overemphasis on USMLE Step 1 performance and improve medical student well-being are admirable, it remains to be seen if pass/fail scoring will accomplish these goals.

Reporting of Research by Matched Otolaryngology Residency Applicants.

OBJECTIVES: Matching to an otolaryngology residency program is a competitive process for medical students, and research performed by students is considered as a factor for granting interviews by program directors. Because abstracts, presentations and publications are all reported in combination by the National Resident Matching Program's "Charting Outcomes in the Match" (ChOM) and may be weighted differently by PDs, we specifically investigated the number of publications by past applicants accepted to top otolaryngology residency programs. METHODS: The top 25 otolaryngology residency programs were identified using Doximity, sorting by reputation. Current residents were determined from the programs' websites. Using PubMed, each resident's number of publications, authorship status, and journal type were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 24 programs were included in the final analysis and the average number of manuscripts was 2.76 ± 4.01. The mean number of publications in otolaryngology journals was 1.03 ± 1.91. CONCLUSIONS: The difference between the investigated average number of publications (2.76) and those published by ChOM (10.4) represent a discrepancy due to the lack of delineation between abstracts, presentations and publications. The reported numbers for research may lead medical students to pursue alternate measures to increase their own research. Some options, such as adding a research year are not universally accessible. A clearer and more detailed approach to reporting research statistics would be beneficial to both applicants and PDs for otolaryngology programs.

Applicant-to-Residency Program Communication: Does It Matter?

OBJECTIVES: To elucidate the frequency and types of pre- and post-interview communication that applicants engage with programs, to garner the perceptions of both applicants and program directors (PDs), and determine if communication influences outcomes. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Electronic surveys were distributed to otolaryngology residency applicants, and to PDs of ACGME-accredited otolaryngology programs after the 2018 to 2019 application cycle. RESULTS: 93 of 324 applicants (28.7%) and 33 of 106 PDs (31.3%) responded. In the pre-interview period, 58.1% of applicants sent emails of interest, and 41.9% had a mentor initiate communication. In the post-interview period, the majority of applicants (82.8%) sent notes of intent to their number one choice, and 32.3% had a faculty mentor communicate this on their behalf. The majority of PDs (84.8%) were undecided or did not believe that emails of interest influence decisions to offer an interview, whereas 81.8% believed that communication initiated by an applicant's mentor has an impact on interview offers. No PD agreed that declarations of intent from applicants have an impact on their rank lists, while only 33.3% of PDs believed that a mentor communicating this for an applicant has some impact. Our statistical findings are in agreement with these perceptions as neither applicant-initiated pre-interview (P = .54), mentor-initiated pre-interview (P = .62), applicant-initiated post-interview (P = .11) nor mentor-initiated post-interview (P = .78) communications influenced the number of interviews received or ultimate match outcome. CONCLUSION: Pre- and post-interview communication practices vary widely among otolaryngology applicants. Applicant-initiated communication has no impact on outcomes, while mentor-initiated communication is perceived to have more benefit, despite not impacting interview or match outcomes in this study.

Perceived Preparedness of Facial Plastic Surgery Fellows Over Time: A Survey of AAFPRS Fellowship Directors.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the effects of American Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) resident work hour restrictions on the preparedness of incoming facial plastic surgery fellows as assessed by American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (AAFPRS) fellowship directors. METHODS: Observational survey study evaluating the perception of ACGME resident duty hour change on resident surgical and clinical skills from fellowship directors of AAFPRS fellowship programs in the US. A cross-sectional survey was sent to 47 fellowship directors of AAFPRS fellowship programs. Perceived change in resident clinical and surgical skills were measured using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = significantly improved, 2 = improved, 3 = neither improved nor worsened, 4 = worsened, 5 = significantly worsened) to evaluate 15 benchmarks. RESULTS: Responses received from 36 fellowship directors. The results indicate no statistically significant perceived trend of ACGME duty hour reform on fellows for AAFPRS fellowships among fellowship directors. However, cohort analysis demonstrated that fellowship directors with more than 10 years of service perceived a more negative impact in 2 clinical benchmarks (assessment/planning and basic exposure) over time. CONCLUSIONS: The study results appear to show no significant perceived trend over time on the effect of duty hour reform on fellows for AAFPRS fellowships among fellowship directors. However, there are some apparent opinion differences between fellowship directors separated by years of service, with more negative perceptions noted in 2 clinical areas by those with more than 10 years of service. This study is in line with the more recent literature that suggests a trend toward a less negative perception of the duty hour change. This may suggest resident education is adapting to the ACGME duty hour regulations.

Development of Evaluations to Assess the Quality of Residency Program Directors.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to develop residency program director specific evaluation tools with face validity for identifying areas of excellence and opportunities for improvement. METHODS: Investigators conducted standardized interviews with graduate medical education (GME) leadership, department chairs, program directors, and senior residents assessing their perspectives on the desirable qualities of program directors. Responses were categorized by theme to create benchmarked evaluation tools. RESULTS: Residents and faculty emphasized communication, mentorship, and role modeling. Faculty emphasized maintenance of accreditation and resident discipline, while residents emphasized wellness, approachability, and maintenance of the learning environment. The investigators then developed a 10-item assessment for residents and a similar 12-item assessment for department chairs and GME leadership with face validity. CONCLUSION: Although the responsibilities of residency training directors are numerous and variable by specialty, the investigators were able to develop valid program director evaluation tool templates that can highlight the successes and opportunities for improvement of these academicians.

The Changing Characteristics of Anesthesiology Program Directors.

BACKGROUND: Residency program directors (PD) play a critical role in graduate medical education (GME) programs. We previously published a manuscript that defined the population of programs and program directors of ACGME-accredited anesthesiology residencies and established benchmark data for comparison.1 This study compares characteristics of current anesthesiology programs and PDs with baseline data reported in our previous study. METHODS: Data were gathered through review of ACGME and American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) websites, medical licensure records, residency program websites, and electronic search engines. Program characteristics assessed included accreditation status, number of approved positions, and previous osteopathic accreditation. PD characteristics assessed included age, academic rank, sex, time since appointment, ABA certification, and simultaneous appointment as department chair. RESULTS: The number of programs increased from 131 to 147 (12.2%) and was mostly (9/13, 68.2%) due to new ACGME-accreditation of preexisting osteopathic programs. PD age, sex, and time since appointment (3.6 years) did not differ between study periods. The number of PDs with senior academic rank and the number who also serve as department chairs decreased significantly. CONCLUSIONS: The number and size of anesthesiology programs increased since our last study. This can be largely explained by ACGME accreditation of osteopathic programs. PD characteristics are similar except for a decrease in the number with senior academic rank and the number who also serve as department chairs. There was no change in the percentage of women PDs between the study periods. The high rate of anesthesiology PD turnover and low median duration of appointment merit further investigation.

Surgery program directors' knowledge of opioid prescribing regulations: a survey study.

BACKGROUND: Opioid misuse is a public health crisis that stems in part from overprescribing by health-care providers. Surgical residents are commonly responsible for prescribing opioids at patient discharge, and residency program directors (PDs) are charged with their residents' education. Because each hospital and state has different opioid prescribing policies, we sought to assess PDs' knowledge about local controlled substance prescribing polices. METHODS: A survey was emailed to surgery PDs that included questions regarding residency characteristics and knowledge of state regulations. RESULTS: A total of 247 PDs were emailed with 110 (44.5%) completed responses. One hundred and four (94.5%) allow residents to prescribe outpatient opioids; one was unsure. Sixty-three (57.3%) respondents correctly answered if their state required opioid prescribing education for full licensure. Twenty-two (20.0%) were unsure if their state required opioid prescribing education for licensure. Sixty-four (58.2%) respondents answered correctly if a prescription monitor programs use is required in their state. Twenty-nine (26.4%) were unsure if a state prescription monitor programs existed. Seventy-six (69.1%) PDs answered correctly about their state's requirement for an additional registration to prescribe controlled substances; 10 (9.1%) did not know if this was required. Twenty-nine (27.9%) programs require residents to obtain individual drug enforcement agency registration; 5 (4.8%) were unsure if this was required. CONCLUSIONS: Most programs allow residents to prescribe outpatient opioids. However, this survey demonstrated a considerable gap in PDs' knowledge about controlled substance regulations. Because they oversee surgical residents' education, PDs should be versed about their local policies in this matter.

Academic Benchmarks for Otolaryngology Leaders.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize current benchmarks for academic otolaryngologists serving in positions of leadership and identify factors potentially associated with promotion to these positions. METHODS: Information regarding chairs (or division chiefs), vice chairs, and residency program directors was obtained from faculty listings and organized by degree(s) obtained, academic rank, fellowship training status, sex, and experience. Research productivity was characterized by (a) successful procurement of active grants from the National Institutes of Health and prior grants from the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts program and (b) scholarly impact, as measured by the h-index. RESULTS: Chairs had the greatest amount of experience (32.4 years) and were the least likely to have multiple degrees, with 75.8% having an MD degree only. Program directors were the most likely to be fellowship trained (84.8%). Women represented 16% of program directors, 3% of chairs, and no vice chairs. Chairs had the highest scholarly impact (as measured by the h-index) and the greatest external grant funding. CONCLUSION: This analysis characterizes the current picture of leadership in academic otolaryngology. Chairs, when compared to their vice chair and program director counterparts, had more experience and greater research impact. Women were poorly represented among all academic leadership positions.

The ideal resident: perspective from a residency program director.

There are certain traits that residency program directors seek in a candidate. The combined characteristics constitute the attributes of an ideal resident. The goal of this article is to delineate and expand upon the characteristics of an ideal resident. Although the focus of the article is on ideal traits, responsibilities of residency programs are also described.

Relationships between high-stakes clinical skills exam scores and program director global competency ratings of first-year pediatric residents.

BACKGROUND: Responding to mandates from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and American Osteopathic Association (AOA), residency programs have developed competency-based assessment tools. One such tool is the American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians (ACOP) program directors' annual report. High-stakes clinical skills licensing examinations, such as the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination Level 2-Performance Evaluation (COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE), also assess competency in several clinical domains. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationships between program director competency ratings of first-year osteopathic residents in pediatrics and COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE scores from 2005 to 2009. METHODS: The sample included all 94 pediatric first-year residents who took COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and whose training was reviewed by the ACOP for approval of training between 2005 and 2009. Program director competency ratings and COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE scores (domain and component) were merged and analyzed for relationships. RESULTS: Biomedical/biomechanical domain scores were positively correlated with overall program director competency ratings. Humanistic domain scores were not significantly correlated with overall program director competency ratings, but did show moderate correlation with ratings for interpersonal and communication skills. The six ACGME or seven AOA competencies assessed empirically by the ACOP program directors' annual report could not be recovered by principal component analysis; instead, three factors were identified, accounting for 86% of the variance between competency ratings. DISCUSSION: A few significant correlations were noted between COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE scores and program director competency ratings. Exploring relationships between different clinical skills assessments is inherently difficult because of the heterogeneity of tools used and overlap of constructs within the AOA and ACGME core competencies.