More Than One-third of Orthopaedic Applicants Are in the Top 10%: The Standardized Letter of Recommendation and Evaluation of Orthopaedic Resident Applicants.

BACKGROUND: The American Orthopaedic Association (AOA) released the standardized letter of recommendation (SLOR) form to provide standardized information to evaluators of orthopaedic residency applicants. The SLOR associates numerical data to an applicant's letter of recommendation. However, it remains unclear whether the new letter form effectively distinguishes among orthopaedic applicants, for whom letters are perceived to suffer from "grade inflation." In addition, it is unknown whether letters from more experienced faculty members differ in important ways from those written by less experienced faculty. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What proportion of SLOR recipients were rated in the top 10th percentile and top one-third of the applicant pool? (2) Did letters from program leaders (program directors and department chairs) demonstrate lower aggregate SLOR scores compared with letters written by other faculty members? (3) Did letters from away rotation program leaders demonstrate lower aggregate SLOR scores compared with letters written by faculty at the applicant's home institution? METHODS: This was a retrospective, single institution study examining 559 applications from the 2018 orthopaedic match. Inclusion criteria were all applications submitted to this residency. Exclusion criteria included all letters without an associated SLOR. In all, 1852 letters were received; of these, 26% (476) were excluded, and 74% (1376) were analyzed for SLOR data. We excluded 12% (169 of 1376) of letters that did not include a final summative score. Program leaders were defined as orthopaedic chairs and program directors. Away rotation letters were defined as letters written by faculty during an applicant's away rotation. Our study questions were answered accounting for each subcategory on the SLOR (scale 1-10) and the final ranking (scale 1-5) to form an aggregated score from the SLOR form for each letter. All SLOR questions were included in the creation of these scores. Correlations between program leaders and other faculty letter writers were assessed using a chi-square test. We considered a 1-point difference on 5-point scales to be a clinically important difference and a 2-point difference on 10-point scales to be clinically important. RESULTS: We found that 36% (437 of 1207) of the letters we reviewed indicated the candidate was in the top 10th percentile of all applicants evaluated, and 51% (619 of 1207) of the letters we reviewed indicated the candidate was in the top one-third of all applicants evaluated. We found no clinically important difference between program leaders and other faculty members in terms of summative scores on the SLOR (1.9 ± 0.7 versus 1.7 ± 0.7, mean difference -0.2 [95% CI -0.3 to 0.1]; p < 0.001). We also found no clinically important difference between home program letter writers and away program letter writers in terms of the mean summative scores (1.9 ± 0.7 versus 1.7 ± 0.7, mean difference 0.2; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In light of these discoveries, programs should examine the data obtained from SLOR forms carefully. SLOR scores skew very positively, which may benefit weaker applicants and harm stronger applicants. Program leaders give summative scores that do not differ substantially from junior faculty, suggesting there is no important difference in grade inflation between these faculty types, and as such, there is no strong need to adjust scores by faculty level. Likewise, away rotation letter writers' summative scores were not substantially different from those of home institution letters writers, indicating that there is no need to adjust scores between these groups either. Based on these findings, we should interpret letters with the understanding that overall there is substantial grade inflation. However, while weight used to be given to letters written by senior faculty members and those obtained on away rotations, we should now examine them equally, rather than trying to adjust them for overly high or low scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

The Haitian Orthopaedic Residency Exchange Program.

After a devastating earthquake in Haiti in 2010, multiple South Carolinian orthopaedic teams, funded by the South Carolina Orthopedic Association (SCOA), developed an exchange program for Haitian residents. METHODS: SCOA teams have sequentially logged their patient experiences since 2015 for a total of six updates per year. These logs were reviewed in detail to evaluate clinical results in terms of case volumes, cases performed, follow-up obtained, and complications. RESULTS: Twenty-one orthopaedic attendings, 19 South Carolina orthopaedic residents, 22 Haitian orthopaedic residents, and 22 ancillary staff have rotated through Hospital Lumiere. The teams have seen over 2000 patients in the orthopaedic clinic and performed 554 surgeries, including 207 fractures (half of which being open), 24 nonunion and 7 malunion repairs, 15 lower extremity amputations, 27 hemiarthroplasties for femoral neck fractures, and 34 cases of chronic osteomyelitis. DISCUSSION: The SCOA Foundation has developed a coordinated service for the musculoskeletal needs of the Haitian people while collaboratively elevating the standard of orthopaedic training in Haiti. We report a collaborative model that other US residency programs can use to impart beneficial changes not only in their home program, but also in training programs abroad.

Orthopaedic Resident Remediation: Frequency, Interventions, and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Despite multiple studies in other areas of surgical resident education, there is no current literature regarding orthopaedic resident remediation. The goal of the present study was to use a survey format to determine the frequency of remediation, the underlying etiology, the intervention strategies utilized, and the outcomes. METHODS: The program directors of all current 159 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-recognized orthopaedic residency programs in the United States were e-mailed a non-identifying digital survey. Follow-up e-mails were sent monthly for a 3-month period. The data remained anonymous, with no identifying information. The data are reported with use of descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Seventy (44%) of 159 program directors responded; most were from academic institutions with 4 to 5 residents per class. One hundred and fifty-eight residents were remediated, with the greatest number being remediated during the third postgraduate year (PGY-3). Professionalism, patient care, and communication were the most common deficiencies requiring remediation. Mentorship, feedback, and probation were the most common interventions. Of the 117 residents for which the outcome was reported, 58 graduated on time, 14 graduated from another program, 25 graduated from another specialty, 14 were terminated, 3 pursued litigation, and 3 chose a non-medical career. Rehabilitation, didactics, feedback, and mentorship were associated with the highest rates of on-time graduation. CONCLUSIONS: Most remediated residents were PGY-3, suggesting increased scrutiny as residents moved from junior to senior responsibilities. The greatest number of deficiencies requiring remediation pertained to the affective domain, which highlights the importance of screening measures such as away rotations and interviews. The relationships formed during increased feedback sessions and mentorships can help problem residents to graduate on time.

Impact of Body Mass Index and Bacterial Resistance in Osteomyelitis after Antibiotic Prophylaxis of Open Lower-Extremity Fractures.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the clinical effectiveness of antimicrobial prophylaxis in lower-extremity open fractures following the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Guidelines. METHODS: This observational, retrospective, single-center study included adults with lower-extremity open fractures of the ankle, tibia, fibula, or femur. The primary endpoint was the incidence of osteomyelitis within 12 months of the fracture. Secondary endpoint comparisons were the time of antibiotic initiation and drug selection. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients were included. Patients suffered from Gustilo and Anderson grades I (14%), II (54.7%), and III (31.3%) fractures. Almost all patients received cefazolin (98%). Among grade III fractures, 59.3% (16/27) of patients received additional gram-negative coverage as recommended by the guidelines. The osteomyelitis rate was 8.9%. There was no difference in osteomyelitis rates among patients with grade III fractures who received or did not receive additional gram-negative coverage: 18.8% (3/16) and 0 (0/11) (p = 0.248), respectively. There was no correlation between median antibiotic start time or antibiotic stop time after closure and the development of osteomyelitis, respectively. Resistant organisms caused 50% (4/8) of the osteomyelitis cases. On univariate analysis, obesity had the most significant association with osteomyelitis (p = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Bacterial resistance was common among cases of osteomyelitis in our cohort. Obesity was associated with a higher rate of osteomyelitis.