DECIPHERING THE MYTHS AND REALITIES OF THE APPLICATION AND MATCHING PROCESS INTO A PULMONARY/CRITICAL CARE FELLOWSHIP: A SINGLE CENTER STUDY

Abstract

SESSION TITLE: Education, Research, and Quality Improvement 2 SESSION TYPE: Original Investigation Posters PRESENTED ON: 10/10/2018 01:00 pm - 02:00 pm PURPOSE: Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) fellowships are competitive, with a match rate of about 70%. Many myths exist among applicants about how to match in PCCM with few resources available to navigate the process. We sought to better understand application patterns and motives and identify characteristics that are associated (or not) with a positive match. METHODS: A 28-item survey was distributed to all applicants to the University of Southern California PCCM fellowship 2017 and 2018 appointment years. 429 surveys were sent via email, with a 26% completion rate. Questions included demographics, medical school and residency training types, research projects, leadership roles, match success, test scores, and others. Categories were compared using chi-square tests. RESULTS: Applicants training in a university hospital or community-based university hospital were more likely to match than those attending community-based programs (p=0.036). Applicants who failed any United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) were less likely to match (p=0.004). There was a trend towards significance in medical school type, with US osteopathic less likely to match than US allopathic or US based foreign medical schools (p=0.08). Other non-significant categories included: US citizenship status, whether or not applicants had a mentor or reviewed their application with an advisor, the number of programs applied to, number and type of research projects, and leadership roles during residency. CONCLUSIONS: There are many myths about what constitutes a strong application with little published data providing concrete advice for applying to PCCM fellowship. Much of the advice applicants receive are through web-based forums or “hearsay.” The NRMP Program Director (PD) survey can be a helpful guide but is still somewhat vague. Our survey showed the type of residency program training was significant and correlates with the 2016 NRMP PD survey in which PDs rated this 4.2 importance (5-point likert scale). Failing any USMLE exam is associated with reduced match, and correlates with a 4.6 PD rating. While 94% of PDs cited involvement in research to be essential (importance ranked 4.1), our study shows that the number and type of research project did not make a difference. Similarly, while 77% of PDs cited leadership qualities to be important (ranked 4.3), our study shows that type of leadership role taken during residency, including chief resident, was not significant. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: While it is hard to draw definitive conclusions from our single center study, it appears that there are identifiable factors that correlate with a successful match into a PCCM program, and many that do not. By providing more discrete characteristics of successful match applicants, as well as delineating factors that are myths versus reality, we hope to be able to give better advice and more concrete mentoring for future PCCM applicants. DISCLOSURES: No relevant relationships by Rami El-Yousef, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by aaron glucksman, source=Web Response No relevant relationships by May Lee, source=Web Response