Eligible Applicants and Diversity Across Settings in a Regional Family Medicine Residency Network.

OBJECTIVES: Residency programs must gather and track data on the diversity of their applicants, interviewees, and matched residents as part of the process of checking for bias in the interview and rank process. As such, the aims of this study were (1) to provide data from a large, regional network of family medicine residencies on who is applying, interviewing, and matching into our programs as a baseline for the family medicine residency community; and (2) to assess potential differences in the gender and racial diversity of the eligible applicants to programs across settings, including in rural and underserved communities. METHODS: Survey of programs in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Washington and Wyoming about their applicant pool in the 2020-2021 interview season. RESULTS: Programs received a median of 100 applications per position, 57 of which were considered eligible. Programs offered 17 interviews per position and 15 of these were completed. Programs in rural and underserved communities did not have fewer eligible applicants per position, nor was there less diversity within that pool of applicants. Most programs are working to increase their program's diversity. CONCLUSION: On average, the racial and gender diversity of eligible applicants to programs in rural and underserved settings is no different than other programs. What is important in terms of diversity varies across programs, based on community needs and program mission, but having a mechanism to extract and review data and to then be able to assess progress is a place to start.

Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program Outcomes in a Family Medicine Residency Network.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The National Resident Matching Program's (NRMP) Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) places unmatched applicants in residency programs. We examined the outcomes and experience of family medicine residency programs that matched with residents through SOAP. METHODS: In 2020, all program directors in a regional family medicine residency network whose programs had participated in SOAP (n=23) completed a survey on their experience with SOAP and characteristics of residents who were matched via SOAP (n=52) anytime between 2012 and 2020. Resident outcome measures included graduation, remediation, leadership, fit, and comparisons of Milestones areas. Experiences with the SOAP process included factors that may have led the program to SOAP and advice for other programs participating. RESULTS: Eighty-seven percent of residents matched via the SOAP graduated, and the majority compared favorably to other residents. Two-thirds of program directors were very likely to hire their residents matched via the SOAP. Rural programs had similar outcomes, although rural-track positions represented 30% of all residents matched via the SOAP in the study. More than half of all responding program directors reported being underprepared for the SOAP process. Program directors recommend getting familiar with the NRMP resources and setting aside time for key personnel in case a program needs to participate in SOAP. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of residents matched via the SOAP are well prepared for training, contribute to their programs, and perform as well as other residents. Rural programs are more likely to place residents via SOAP than nonrural programs.

Recruitment of Residents to Rural Programs: Early Outcomes of RRPD Cohort 1.

Context: Rural America has fewer physicians leading to poorer health outcomes. In an attempt to bolster the rural physician workforce, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) funded a series of Rural Residency Planning and Development (RRPD) awards to develop rural residency programs in needed specialties. These 3-year program start-up grants were awarded to the initial cohort of RRPD grantees in 2019. Objective: Explore early workforce outcomes of the RRPD grants program, using resident recruitment data Study Design & Analysis: cross-sectional, descriptive analysis of qualitative and quantitative evaluation data Setting: new rural residency training programs across the U.S. Intervention/instrument: grantee exit survey, administered at the conclusion of their RRPD award Population studied: Cohort 1 RRPD grantees: 25 newly developing residency programs in Family Medicine (n=20), Psychiatry (n=4) and Internal Medicine (n=1) across the US Outcome measures: Median total and eligible applications per available position; median interviews offered and completed per position; positions filled in the main residency Match vs the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP); residents from the state where program is located Results: The 25 Cohort 1 RRPD programs range in size from 2 to 8 residents per year. Most programs (16 or 64%) were considered rural training tracks and anticipate that residents will spend on average 73% of their time at rural training sites (50% min to 100% max). Of the 25 sites, 17 (68%) were far enough along in development to participate in the 2022 Match. These programs received a median of 152 (range 25-349) total applications per position, 22 (range 5-122) of which were considered eligible. They offered a median of 15 (range 5-45) interviews per position and completed 15 (range 5-33) of these. Most of the 68 total positions were filled in the main NRMP Match (79% average) though some (19% average) were filled in the SOAP. Approximately 1 in 3 (34%) of residents currently enrolled in Cohort 1 RRPD programs are from the state in which the program is located, though this ranged from 0 to 79% by program. Conclusions: Early resident recruitment outcomes suggest the RRPD model is successful in creating and supporting new physician workforce training in rural communities. A strong main Match fill rate (79%) may indicate student interest in rural training, including those who are local to the area.

What's Worth Doing in Virtual Recruitment? A Regional Survey of Program Directors and Incoming Interns.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 2020-2021, the Family Medicine Residency Network (FMRN) programs participated in virtual recruitment. We conducted a study to describe the recruitment activities utilized by programs and to identify which of these activities were most and least helpful to both students and the programs. METHODS: In May 2021, we sent an electronic survey to the incoming interns (n=242) asking which recruitment activities they participated in, which were most and least helpful in deciding their rank list, and which most positively impacted their perception of the program. Simultaneously, we surveyed the 43 FMRN program directors (PDs), asking them which virtual recruitment activities they offered, which were most and least helpful in creating their rank list, and which they thought most positively impacted students' perception. RESULTS: The 167 intern survey responses (69% response) indicated that virtual interviews and virtual get-togethers with residents were most helpful to deciding rank list order while receiving gifts and meals were least helpful. Websites, bios, and social media positively impacted perception of a program. PDs (79% response) overestimated the importance of the recruitment video and a prerecorded hospital/clinic tour and underestimated the importance of resident-only social interactions to the applicants. CONCLUSIONS: Programs may improve the effectiveness of their virtual recruitment process by maximizing interactions with current residents and creating opportunities for interviews with individuals in different positions across the program. Reducing spending on gifts and meals frees up funds better spent on activities with greater impact such as website improvement and more events for student interaction with current residents.