AOA ophthalmology and otolaryngology program closures as a model to highlight challenges of maintaining GME in high need areas.

CONTEXT: While 90% of former American Osteopathic Association (AOA) residency programs transitioned to Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accreditation, surgical subspecialty programs such as ear, nose, and throat (ENT, 62%) and ophthalmology (47%) struggled to gain accreditation. Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (DOs) actively participate in serving underserved communities, and the loss of AOA surgical specialty programs may decrease access to surgical care in rural and nonmetropolitan areas. OBJECTIVES: To determine the challenges faced by former AOA-accredited surgical subspecialty programs during the transition to ACGME accreditation, particularly ENT and ophthalmology programs in underresourced settings. METHODS: A directory of former AOA ENT and Ophthalmology programs was obtained from the American Osteopathic Colleges of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AOCOO-HNS). A secured survey was sent out to 16 eligible ENT and ophthalmology program directors (PDs). The survey contained both quantitative and qualitative aspects to help assess why these programs did not pursue or failed to receive ACGME accreditation. RESULTS: Twelve of 16 eligible programs responded, com-prising six ophthalmology and six ENT PDs. Among the respondents, 83% did not pursue accreditation (6 ophthalmology and 4 ENT programs), and 17% were unsuccessful in achieving accreditation despite pursuing accreditation (2 ENT programs). Across 12 respondents, 7 (58%) cited a lack of hospital/administrative support and 5 (42%) cited excessive costs and lack of faculty support as reasons for not pursuing or obtaining ACGME accreditation. CONCLUSIONS: The survey results reflect financial issues associated with rural hospitals. A lack of hospital/administrative support and excessive costs to transition to the ACGME were key drivers in closures of AOA surgical specialty programs. In light of these results, we have four recommendations for various stakeholders, including PDs, Designated Institutional Officials, hospital Chief Medical Officers, and health policy experts. These recommendations include expanding Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education to surgical subspecialties, identifying and learning from surgical fields such as urology that fared well during the transition to ACGME, addressing the lack of institutional commitment and the prohibitive costs of maintaining ACGME-accredited subspecialty programs in underresourced settings, and reconsidering the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) pool approach to physician reimbursement.

Practice Locations of Michigan Ophthalmologists as a Model to Compare Practice Patterns of DO and MD Surgical Subspecialists.

CONTEXT: While existing data demonstrate that osteopathic physicians (ie, DOs) in primary care are more likely than allopathic physicians (ie, MDs) to practice in rural areas, no data exist on practice patterns of DO surgical subspecialists, such as ophthalmologists. Michigan has a relatively high number of DOs and, formerly, the most osteopathic ophthalmology residency programs in the United States. Analyzing the distribution of ophthalmologists in Michigan may reveal patterns and predict trends about the geographic distribution of DO surgical subspecialists across the country. OBJECTIVE: To compare geographic distributions of DO and MD ophthalmologists in Michigan and identify differences in community size and type (eg, urbanized area, urban cluster, or rural area) of practice. METHODS: A list of Michigan's ophthalmologists practicing in 2018 was developed using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the American Osteopathic College of Ophthalmology, and the American Medical Association data sets. DOs and MDs were then analyzed by determining where each ophthalmologist practiced, identifying the size and type of community in which they practiced, and finally by comparing the percentage of DOs and MDs who practiced in various community sizes and each community type as defined by the US Census Bureau. A χ2 analysis was used to determine whether a difference existed in practice locations. RESULTS: A total of 643 ophthalmologists practiced in Michigan in 2018, including 85 DOs and 558 MDs. A greater proportion of DOs worked in rural areas and urban clusters (57 [67%]), whereas a greater proportion of MDs worked in urbanized areas (368 [66%]). Of DOs, 28 (33%) practiced in cities with a population of at least 50,000 vs 371 MDs (66%). Fourteen DOs (16%) practiced in communities with a population of at least 100,000 vs 207 MDs (37%). χ2 analysis showed a significant difference in the geographic distribution of ophthalmologist DOs and MDs (P<.01). CONCLUSION: Higher proportions of DOs practice ophthalmology in smaller, more rural Michigan communities compared with MDs, implying that a subgroup exists that tends to serve underserved areas.

Residency Program Directors' Interview Methods and Satisfaction With Resident Selection Across Multiple Specialties.

CONTEXT: Competition for postdoctoral training positions is at an all-time high, and residency program directors continue to have little direction when it comes to structuring an effective interview process. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether a relationship existed between interview methods used and program director satisfaction with resident selection decisions and whether programs that used methods designed to assess candidate personal characteristics were more satisfied with their decisions. METHODS: Residency directors from the Statewide Campus System at the Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine were invited to complete a 20-item survey regarding their recent interview methods and proportion of resident selections later regretted. Data analyses examined relationships between interview methods used, frequency of personal characteristics evaluated, and subsequent satisfaction with selected residents. RESULTS: Of the 186 program director surveys distributed, 83 (44.6%) were returned, representing 11 clinical specialty areas. In total, 69 responses (83.1%) were from programs accredited by the American Osteopathic Association only, and 14 (16.9%) were from programs accredited dually by the American Osteopathic Association and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. The most frequent interview method reported was faculty or peer resident interview. No statistically significant correlational relationships were found between type of interview methods used and subsequent satisfaction with selected residents, either within or across clinical specialties. Although program directors rated ethical behavior/honesty as the most highly prioritized characteristic in residents, 27 (32.5%) reported using a specific interview method to assess this trait. Program directors reported later regrets concerning nearly 1 of every 12 resident selection decisions. CONCLUSION: The perceived success of an osteopathic residency program's interview process does not appear to be related to methods used and is not distinctively different from that of programs dually accredited. The findings suggest that it may not be realistic to aim for standardization of a common set of best interview methods or ideal personal characteristics for all programs. Each residency program's optimal interview process is likely unique, more dependent on analyzing why some resident selections are regretted and developing an interview process designed to assess for specific desirable and unwanted characteristics.