MP12-08 STANDARDIZED LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION IN UROLOGY RESIDENCY APPLICATIONS

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyEducation Research II (MP12)1 Sep 2021MP12-08 STANDARDIZED LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION IN UROLOGY RESIDENCY APPLICATIONS Behnam Nabavizadeh, Nizar Hakam, Michael Sadighian, Jordan Holler, Gregory Amend, Lindsay Hampson, and Benjamin Breyer Behnam NabavizadehBehnam Nabavizadeh More articles by this author , Nizar HakamNizar Hakam More articles by this author , Michael SadighianMichael Sadighian More articles by this author , Jordan HollerJordan Holler More articles by this author , Gregory AmendGregory Amend More articles by this author , Lindsay HampsonLindsay Hampson More articles by this author , and Benjamin BreyerBenjamin Breyer More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001985.08AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Standardized letters of recommendation (SLORs) have been introduced for residency applications in several specialties to overcome the obstacles in traditional narrative letters of recommendations (e.g., ambiguity, gender bias, low interobserver reliability, etc.). Although the American Urological Association has not officially endorsed a uniform SLOR for candidates seeking urology residency, we observed a substantial increase in the usage of SLORs submitted to our residency program in the 2020–2021 match cycle. In this study, we aimed to identify the formats of SLOR used in urology, characterize their domain ratings, evaluate the correlation between SLOR domain ratings with several components of applicants’ background, and the presence of biases in the current formats of SLOR. METHODS: We evaluated all applications submitted to our residency program for the 2020–2021 urology match. Two main formats of SLOR were identified (Figure 1). We extracted application characteristics and SLOR domain ratings. RESULTS: Ninety SLORs from 82 applicants were reviewed. Applicants were highly rated among top tiers in both formats. Some correlations were observed between domain ratings and application metrics such as Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores, and percentage of Honors in core clinical clerkships. No statistically significant differences were found between female and male applicants in domain ratings. Alpha Omega Alpha members received higher ratings in “urology resident potential”, “academic urologist potential”, and “performance as a sub-intern” domains. Applicants from top 40 US medical schools performed better as sub-interns, and were more likely to be ranked higher. Letters from home institutions were associated with higher ratings in several domains. In-person vs. virtual interactions received similar ratings except for “communication”. CONCLUSIONS: While it is promising to observe such number of SLORs submitted for the first time in urology, the current formats need further revisions in their structures and domains to distinguish between highly qualified urology applicants more efficiently. Given the transition in Step 1 score reporting to pass/fail outcome, the need for a reliable urology-specific SLOR will be critical for the field to select the most qualified applicants to enter this competitive surgical subspecialty. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e191-e191 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Behnam Nabavizadeh More articles by this author Nizar Hakam More articles by this author Michael Sadighian More articles by this author Jordan Holler More articles by this author Gregory Amend More articles by this author Lindsay Hampson More articles by this author Benjamin Breyer More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...