The Impact of Program and Geographic Signaling on Anesthesia Residency Applications, Interviews, and the Match.

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Increased specialty competitiveness, alongside the inception of virtual interviews, has increased the number of applications submitted to the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) in anesthesiology. ERAS introduced signals to provide applicants with a means to demonstrate interest in a select group of residency programs. In the 2023 to 2024 application cycle, anesthesiology applicants had the opportunity to send 5 gold and 10 silver signals in a tiered system. This multicenter, cross-sectional (exempt) research survey was created by members of the executive council of the Association of Anesthesiology Core Program Directors (AACPD) and housed and distributed through REDCap and the University of Nebraska Medical Center. Publicly available contact information of anesthesiology core program directors was obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) website and membership roster of the AACPD. In total, 174 anesthesiology programs were identified. A survey invitation was distributed on March 12, 2024, to all programs via e-mail with reminders. The survey closed on April 30, 2024. Survey responses were collected anonymously, with instructions to provide 1 response per program. All statistical summaries and analyses were performed using SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute). The survey was sent to all 174 identified programs, with a response rate of 48.9%. Small programs were defined as having <44 residents, medium 44 to 62 residents, and large >62 residents. Small programs received significantly fewer applications (median 1255) than medium (1420) and large (1558) programs (P = .0005). There was a statistically significant difference in the number of gold signals received based on program size, with large programs receiving significantly more than medium (169 vs 116, P = .0238) or small programs (168 vs 71, P < .0001). Applicants sending gold signals were more likely to receive an interview compared to those who sent silver signals (56.7% vs 31%, P ≤ .0001). Of the those interviewed, applicants who sent gold signals comprised 42% (28.7%-52.6%), whereas applicants who sent silver signals comprised 45.5% (33%-54.7%). Applicants who did not send a program signal but signaled geographically made up a smaller portion of the interview group at 3% (0%-15.4%). The percentage of matched residents sending gold signals made up 66.7% (47.1%-82.4%) of a program's match list, whereas those sending silver signals were 25% (11.1%-33.3%) of the matched cohort. Anesthesiology applicants who sent program signals were selected for a large majority of available interview positions, and interviewed applicants who submitted gold and silver signals comprised the vast majority of matched resident cohorts.