Otolaryngology Residency Program Directors Research Articles

Prevalence of and Barriers to Health Disparities Education Among Otolaryngology Residency Curricula.

To assess the prevalence of health disparities curricula in otolaryngology residency programs and identify implementation barriers. Cross-sectional survey. National otolaryngology residency programs. A survey based on published literature discussing the incorporation of health disparities curricula, educational design, quality, barriers to implementation, and patient demographics was sent to US otolaryngology residency program directors (PDs). Otolaryngology programs excluded from consideration included those of osteopathic recognition, programs outside of the United States, and military programs. In excluding osteopathic, international, and military-based residency programs from our survey, we aimed to maintain sample homogeneity and focus our analysis on allopathic programs due to potential variations in demographic compositions and practice settings. This decision was made to ensure a more targeted examination of health disparities within a specific context, aligning with our research objectives and resource constraints. Anonymous survey results were collected and analyzed to determine the prevalence of health disparities curricula as well as their effectiveness and standardization across residency programs. A total of 24 PDs (response rate, 23%) responded to the survey. Half of the PDs reported having a health disparities curriculum, among whom only 25% felt the quality of their curriculum was very good or excellent. All institutions with an explicit health disparities educational program reported having developed their own curriculum, 75% of which changed annually. However, 92% of these programs reported not measuring outcomes to assess their curriculum's utility. The most reported barriers to curriculum development for all programs included insufficient time (63%), limited teaching ability specific to health disparities education (54%), and faculty disinterest in teaching (33%). Very few of the surveyed otolaryngology residency programs have implemented a health disparities curriculum. A comprehensive and standardized health disparities curriculum would be beneficial to ensure that residents can confidently develop competency in health disparities, aligning with the Clinical Learning Environment Review mandate and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education expectations.

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders among otolaryngology-head and neck surgery residents

PurposeSurgical residents are at high risk for work-related musculoskeletal disorders which can impact surgical training and overall quality of life. We sought to assess musculoskeletal symptoms among current United States otolaryngology-head and neck surgery residents. We focused on the upper extremity given fine motor control for microsurgical procedures and increased keyboarding requirements. This study builds on previous research by evaluating setting attribution and attitudes toward ergonomics among otolaryngology residents. Materials and methodsA web-based, cross-sectional survey incorporating Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire and ergonomics-related questions was sent to otolaryngology residency program directors in September of 2021. Descriptive statistics, Spearman's correlation, logistic regression, and comparison of proportions were utilized. ResultsOverall, 148 otolaryngology residents completed the survey; 70 were female (45 %), 83 male (54 %), and 1 non-binary (0.6 %). MSK symptoms were reported in the neck (77.0 %), lower back (45.5 %), and upper back (31.8 %) most frequently. Symptoms were work-related for 80 % of residents, with 84.7 % deemed operating-room-related. Some required treatment (14.5 %) or formal evaluation (11.0 %) of their injury. Injuries prevented residents from working (7.4 %), operating (9.5 %), and performing activities of daily living (27.0 %). Many reported they would use ergonomic equipment (94.2 %), dictation software (74.1 %), and scribes (81.3 %) if available. ConclusionsDespite increased surgical ergonomic awareness, musculoskeletal symptoms are still prevalent among otolaryngology residents. Nearly 1 in 9 residents required evaluation and treatment of their musculoskeletal symptoms, and one third reported lacking various ergonomic measures. Given the high prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders, ergonomic practices for O-HNS trainees should be emphasized by residency programs.

Virtual Interviewing in the Era of COVID-19: A Preliminary Analysis of Otolaryngology Residency Program Costs.

ObjectiveA preliminary comparison of the program experience and costs associated with the virtual interview season during the 2020-2021 COVID-19 pandemic against the traditional in-person interview process during the 2019-2020 interview season.Study DesignCross-sectional survey.SettingOur institutional program launched an online survey via REDCap to otolaryngology programs across the country.MethodsA 33-item survey was sent to otolaryngology residency program directors regarding their experience and costs associated with virtual interviews during the 2020-2021 cycle and in-person interviews during the previous 2019-2020 cycle. Purchasing cost and opportunity cost were calculated for each program.ResultsTwenty-two programs sent back completed survey responses. Program responses were equally represented among all regions of the United States. In the 2020-2021 interview season, programs received more applications (mean, 400 vs 336 the year prior, P < .001) for a similar number of residency spots per program (3.04 in 2020-2021 vs 3.0 2019-2020, P = .715). The virtual interview led to more half-day interviews, a shorter duration of each interview, and fewer interviews completed per interview date. Purchasing cost decreased by $1940.46 (73%), and person-hours dedicated to the interview process decreased by 52.36 with the virtual interview. Total savings per program with virtual interviews were an estimated $6941.66.ConclusionsVirtual interviews in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic led to a shift in application and interview patterns and was associated with a reduction in costs for programs when compared with the in-person interview format.

Otolaryngology residency programs' perspectives on virtual interviews during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ObjectiveTo evaluate perceptions of otolaryngology residency program directors (PDs) and department chairs (DCs) on virtual interviews (VIs) at the conclusion of the 2021 residency match.Study designCross‐sectional survey study.MethodsAn anonymous and voluntary survey was administered to PDs and DCs of U.S. otolaryngology residency programs from March 1, 2021 to April 11, 2021. Utilizing Likert scale ratings, the survey measured overall satisfaction with the VI format, perceived ability to assess key candidate attributes, relative importance of traditional candidate metrics, and likelihood to implement VIs in future cycles.ResultsNinety‐four surveys were completed by PDs (48.9%) and DCs (51.1%). Sixty (63.8%) respondents found the VI experience to be satisfactory or strongly satisfactory. Sixty‐six (70.2%) respondents felt confident in their ability to assess a candidate's professionalism and communication skills through VIs; however, confidence in gauging an applicant's clinical skills/knowledge (41.2%) and overall program fit (47.3%) was lower. Regarding candidate metrics, 64 (68.1%) respondents believed that personal prior knowledge of the applicant gained increased importance with VIs. Forty‐four (46.8%) and 45 (47.9%) participants believed that letters of recommendation in the specialty and perceived commitment to their program similarly attained increased significance in evaluating applicants, respectively.ConclusionMost PDs and DCs were satisfied with their VI experiences and expect the quality of interns to be unaffected by virtual assessment modalities. Majority opinion on the relative importance of traditional applicant metrics remained largely unchanged, the exception being an increase in importance of prior knowledge of the applicant.Level of Evidence: N/A.

Otolaryngology Residency Match During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

ObjectiveTo review changes made by otolaryngology residency program directors (PDs) during the 2020-2021 National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) match cycle and describe their attitudes toward the 2021-2022 match cycle.MethodsCross-sectional study using an anonymous 31-item online survey in Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) with questions regarding the 2020-2021 NRMP match. This survey was distributed to 125 PDs from Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited otolaryngology residency programs.ResultsThirty-three PDs responded (26.4%). Of the PDs, 78.8% had an online info-session prior to the start of the cycle, and 30.3% reported that an increased number of applicants contacted them compared to the prior cycle. There were no changes made in Step 1 criteria (72.7%), and 81.8% reported no changes in interview selection. Of the PDs, 54.5% reported interviewing more candidates. Respondents reported a decreased cancellation rate (66.7%) and cost of recruiting (87.9%); 87.9% said that they did not change the way they developed their rank order list (ROL), and 84.8% reported matching at their usual level compared to prior years. Of the respondents, 42.4% reported making a change that was an overall improvement for their program. Of the PDs, 34.4% were unsure whether they would sustain virtual interviews in 2021-2022, 25% stated that they would not incorporate virtual interviews, and 40.7% stated that they would incorporate a virtual interview in some part of the cycle.ConclusionOtolaryngology PDs approached virtual interviewing in different ways. Despite the changes made, applicants can find comfort in knowing that match outcomes were perceived as typical by a majority of PDs.

Going Global: Interest in Global Health Among US Otolaryngology Residents.

Background:To meet the rising interest in surgical global health, some surgical residency programs offer global health experiences. The level of interest in these programs, however, and their role in residency recruitment and career planning has not been systematically evaluated.Objective:(1) Define interest in global health among Otolaryngology residents in the USA. (2) Assess engagement of Otolaryngology residencies in global health training. (3) Determine barriers to global health training in residency.Methods:A survey questionnaire was developed and sent to all Otolaryngology Residency Program Directors for distribution to all current Otolaryngology residents in the US.Results:A total of 91 complete surveys were collected. A majority of respondents felt that global health was either “very important” or “extremely important” (67%). Two-thirds of respondents had prior global health experience (68%). While 56% of respondents would definitely participate in a global health elective and 78% would likely or definitely participate, only 37% of residency programs offered a global health experience. The availability of a global health elective significantly correlated with residency match choice in respondents with previous global health experience. The three most common barriers to participation were insufficient time, insufficient funding, and lack of program.Conclusion:Participation in bilateral and equitable international electives is a unique experience of personal and professional growth. There is an interest in these opportunities during residency training among Otolaryngology residents that is not reflected in availability within training programs. This suggests the need for development of humanitarian outreach exposure through global health experiences during surgical residency training.

Perceived Impact of USMLE Step 1 Score Reporting to Pass/Fail on Otolaryngology Applicant Selection

Recently, the decision was made to transition the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score from a three-digit numerical score to a pass/fail system. Historically, Step 1 scores have been important for otolaryngology resident applicant selection. The purpose of this study was to understand and evaluate otolaryngology residency program directors' (OPDs) opinions on the impact following the change in Step 1 score reporting. A 22-question survey administered through Qualtrics was sent to 113 academic otolaryngology residency program directors in April 2020. Information about demographics, impressions on the new Step 1 score format, anticipated changes in applicant selection, impact on mental health, and importance of various other factors in selecting applicants were queried. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze survey results. A total of 41 out of 113 (36.3%) OPDs completed this survey. A majority of surveyed OPDs (80.5%) do not support the decision to change Step 1 to a pass/fail system. In the absence of a three digit numeric USMLE Step 1 score, OPDs indicated prioritization of away rotations, letters of recommendation (LORs), personal prior knowledge of the applicant, grades in required clerkship, and class ranking or quartile. 53.7% of OPDs anticipate requiring USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge for interview consideration following this change. OPDs believe a pass/fail Step 1 score will decrease the importance of this exam and that this change will lead to the implementation and evaluation of additional metrics such as a required Step 2 CK score.

Sexual and Gender Minority Curriculum Within Otolaryngology Residency Programs

Purpose: Otolaryngologists are uniquely situated to provide sexual and gender minority (SGM) care, including gender-affirmation (voice/communication, facial surgery) and HIV/AIDS-related conditions. Yet, no research has characterized otolaryngology residency program directors' attitudes toward SGM-related curricula, nor opportunities for supporting training in SGM-related care. Methods: An anonymous cross-sectional e-mail survey was disseminated to 116 otolaryngology residency program directors in July-September 2019. Information collected included current/future curriculum in and attitudes toward SGM care, and program demographics. Data were categorical and analysis utilized chi-square test. Results: The 65 complete responses (56% rate) were nationally representative. Overall, 17% of programs include no SGM-related education. Subjective importance of SGM training ranged from not important at all (3%) to absolutely essential (11%), with mode of average importance (47%); this varied significantly by program geographic setting and population, and program size. The mean percentage of curriculum dedicated to SGM care was 1.0% for didactics and 0.7% for clinical. Curricula include HIV/AIDS-related conditions (58%), facial gender-affirming procedures (50%), culturally informed care (42%), changes with gender-affirming hormones (voice/communication: 48%, facial: 22%), and cancer in SGM patients (42%). Frequently reported barriers were insufficient experienced faculty (52%) and time (42%). Program directors deemed visiting expert lectures (66%), small-group discussion (39%), and online modules (27%) the best ways to incorporate SGM education. Conclusions: More than 80% of otolaryngology residency curricula in a representative national survey include SGM-related education, which represents a limited portion of total curriculum. These results highlight the opportunity for expert lectures and discussion-based and online tool development to facilitate standardized SGM education in otolaryngology residencies.

Program Directors’ Opinions About Otolaryngology Resident Teaching Medical School Anatomy

PurposeTo evaluate whether otolaryngology residency program directors (PDs) provide residents to teach pre-clinical medical students anatomy and to outline their perceptions of this practice.MethodsAn anonymous online survey was sent to active U.S. otolaryngology residency PDs in 2019, assessing each program’s involvement in teaching medical student anatomy.ResultsForty-five of 121 (37.1%) of surveyed otolaryngology PDs responded. Sixteen of the 44 (36.4%) residency programs that were associated with a medical school provided residents to teach anatomy (“Teaching Programs”). The 29 (64.4%) remaining programs did not provide residents (“Non-teaching Programs”). No significant differences were found between Teaching and Non-teaching Programs (P<0.05) for the size of the program, the presence of fellowships, the size of medical school, whether residents had won teaching awards, or the number of otolaryngology residency applicants from that school. In general, all PDs responded positively about residents teaching medical school anatomy. Non-teaching Programs primarily cited not being approached by the medical school as a reason for not providing residents to teach.ConclusionThe majority of respondent otolaryngology PDs have a positive view of residents teaching medical students but few do it. Otolaryngology departments will need to take the lead on developing opportunities to put students and residents together for anatomy education.

Recognizing odontogenic sinusitis: A national survey of otolaryngology chief residents.

Odontogenic sinusitis is underrepresented in sinusitis literature as well as in the otolaryngology teaching curriculum sponsored by the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. Otolaryngologists and residents in training may therefore have a decreased awareness of the condition. The objective of this study was to survey otolaryngology chief residents toward the ends of their training to determine how often they considered odontogenic sinusitis as a cause of unilateral sinus disease. An online REDCap survey was conducted from December 2018 to January 2019. Online surveys were emailed to 119 Otolaryngology residency program directors in the United States of America, which were then forwarded to their chief residents. Surveys included 3 demographic and 4 clinical questions. Clinical questions included 3 computed tomography-based questions requiring either differential diagnoses or most likely diagnosis, and 1 question on residents' perceived prevalence of odontogenic sinusitis as a cause of unilateral sinus opacification. Answer choices were tabulated and compared based on geographic region and post-residency career plans. Of 293 chief residents emailed, 94 completed the survey (32.1%). While answer choices on imaging-based questions varied, odontogenic sinusitis was generally underrecognized. Approximately 70% of residents felt odontogenic sinusitis represented 0%-40% of unilateral sinus opacification. There were no statistically significant differences in answers based on geographic distribution or post-residency career plans. Otolaryngology chief residents recognized odontogenic sinusitis with variable accuracy on imaging, and generally underestimated its prevalence as a cause of unilateral sinus opacification. Efforts should be made to teach otolaryngology residents about odontogenic sinusitis.

Nasal bone fractures and the use of radiographic imaging: An otolaryngologist perspective.

To determine radiologic preferences of practicing otolaryngologists regarding isolated nasal bone fractures. An 8-question survey on isolated nasal bone fractures was designed. Surveys were sent to all otolaryngology residency program directors for distribution among residents and faculty. Additional surveys were distributed to private practice otolaryngology groups. 140 physicians responded to the survey. 57% of the respondents were practicing otolaryngologists (75% with 10+ years of experience), while 43% of respondents were residents-in-training. 56% of respondents treated 1-5 nasal bone fractures per month. 80% of all respondents reported imaging being performed prior to consultation. If imaging was obtained before consultation, plain films and computed tomography (CT) maxillofacial/sinus scans were the most frequent modalities. 33% of residents and 70% of practicing otolaryngologists report imaging as 'rarely' or 'never' helpful in guiding management. 42% of residents and 20% of practicing otolaryngologists report asking for imaging when it wasn't already obtained. Decreased use of radiography was associated with greater years in practice and higher frequency of fractures treated. Otolaryngologists seldom request imaging to evaluate and treat isolated nasal bone fractures. When ordered, imaging is utilized more often among residents-in-training and non-otolaryngology consulting physicians. This study highlights an opportunity to educate primary care and emergency room providers as well as otolaryngology residents on the value of comprehensive physical exam over radiographic imaging in the work-up of isolated nasal fractures. In addition, widespread adoption of a "no x-ray policy" in this setting may result in better resource utilization.

Otolaryngology boot camps: Current landscape and future directions.

Simulation-based boot camps have gained popularity over the past few years, with some surgical specialties implementing mandatory national boot camps. However, there is no consensus in otolaryngology on boot camp timing, learner level, or curriculum. The purpose of this study is to examine the current landscape and gather opinions regarding future curriculum and standardization of boot camps in otolaryngology. A survey was developed to examine current resident participation and boot camp content while also seeking opinions regarding improving boot camp enrollment and standardizing curriculum. A cross-sectional survey of all otolaryngology residency program directors in the United States and Puerto Rico was performed via SurveyMonkey. Responses were collected anonymously, and results were analyzed by descriptive statistical analysis. Of the 45% (48 of 106) who responded, 76.6% reported their residents participate in boot camps. The most common skills taught were basic suturing and airway management skills. The majority (95%) was likely to send residents to a local boot camp, with 56% favoring early postgraduate year (PGY)-1 participation and 42% favoring a 1-day boot camp. Subsidized expenses, improved regional access, and supplementary boot camp information would help the program director in their decision to send residents to boot camp. Only 32% felt boot camps should be standardized, and 27% felt they should be mandatory. Many otolaryngology residency programs participate in boot camps. Additional data on the benefits of boot camps, improved access, and reduced financial burden may improve participation. Further discussion of ideal timing, PGY level, and standardized curriculum should occur in conjunction with the otolaryngology academic societies and oversight from accreditation and certifying bodies. NA Laryngoscope, 129:2707-2712, 2019.

Otolaryngology resident experience with supraclavicular, submental and other regional flaps in the United States

ObjectiveDespite the resurgence in regional flap use, otolaryngology resident regional flap experience has been incompletely studied. We sought to characterize United States (US) otolaryngology resident exposure to, and perceptions of, supraclavicular flaps (SCFs), submental flaps (SMFs), and other regional flaps. MethodsAn online survey was disseminated every two weeks to 106 US otolaryngology residency program directors for distribution to residents within their programs between August and October 2016. 121 surveys were returned of which 106 were sufficiently completed and eligible for data analysis. ResultsAmong residents with adequate responses, 52 were postgraduate year (PGY) 1–3 (junior) residents and 54 were PGY 4–7 (senior) residents. Senior residents participated in more pectoralis major flaps (mean: 8.1, 95%-CI: 6.5–9.8) compared to SCFs (mean: 1.5, 95%-CI: 1.0–2.0, p < 0.001) and SMFs (mean: 0.7; 95%-CI: 0.4–1.0, p < 0.001). Among senior residents exposed to SCFs, SMFs and pectoralis flaps, more individuals judged pectoralis major flaps as successful or very successful (96.2%, 95%-CI: 91.1–100%), compared to SCFs (64.3%, 95%-CI: 46.5–82.0%; p < 0.001) and SMFs (63.2%, 95%-CI: 41.5–84.8%; p = 0.001). ConclusionsSenior otolaryngology residents were exposed to fewer SCFs and SMFs compared to pectoralis major flaps. Resident perception that SCFs and SMFs were not as successful as pectoralis major flaps should be investigated further.

Current Status of Radiology Training in Otolaryngology Residency Programs

Otolaryngologists use head and neck imaging on a daily basis. However, little is known about the training residents receive on the subject. Understanding the current training environment is important to identify areas of improvement for resident education. To assess the current state of radiology training in otolaryngology residency programs. This was a cross-sectional survey of 106 otolaryngology residency program directors involving multiple academic institutions. The main outcome of this study is the number of US otolaryngology residency programs that have a radiology curriculum. Measured outcomes were obtained from an anonymous online survey and reported as a percent of total respondents. Program directors from 39 of 106 (37%) US otolaryngology residency training programs responded to the survey. Twenty-eight of 39 (71%) have a focused radiology curriculum; 18 of 28 (64%) conduct sessions on a monthly basis, 8 of 28 (29%) on a quarterly basis, and 2 of 28 (7%) on a weekly basis. The predominant format (20 of 27 programs [74%]) is a mix of case-based review of inpatient studies and standard lectures. The largest proportion of sessions were run by radiologists (13 of 28 [46%]), with a mix of radiology and otolaryngologists close behind (11 of 28 [39%]). Twenty-two of 39 residency programs (56%) have a dedicated radiology rotation within their educational curriculum, of which 17 of 22 (77%) occur in postgraduate year 1 (PGY-1) of training, 3 of 22 (14%) in PGY-3, and 2 of 22 (9%) in PGY-4. Rotation lengths range from 1 week to 3 months, with most running 1 to 4 weeks. Thirty-two of 38 of US program directors (84%) believe that a formal radiology curriculum would benefit their residents. Thirty-five of 39 believe that this should be a case-based review of images. Twenty-four of 38 believe this should be done on a monthly basis. Fifteen of 39 responding program directors (39%) believe the optimal time is during the PGY-3 of training, 36% (14 of 38) favor the PGY-2, and 23% (9 of 38) in PGY-1. Despite no standardized requirements from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), 71% of US otolaryngology residency program directors who responded to our survey have a radiology curriculum. Most run didactics sessions at the desired frequency, setting, and format preferred by responding program directors. More than half of programs provide a dedicated radiology rotation, mostly during PGY-1, while identifying PGY-2 and PGY-3 as the optimal time for such an experience. These results highlight the need for a more thorough review of radiology education requirements from the ACGME to improve the training of otolaryngology residents across the country.

How should unmatched otolaryngology applicants proceed?

To determine the attitudes of otolaryngology residency program directors and chairpersons toward unmatched residency applicants, including whether a surgical internship or research year is preferred in considering repeat applicants. Cross-sectional survey. Approval was obtained from the Colorado Multiple Institution Review Board. A 12-question Web-based survey was sent to otolaryngology residency program directors and chairpersons three times over a 6-week period. Responses collected from respondents were anonymous, with no identifying characteristics. Forty-five percent of those contacted responded to the survey. The most commonly recommended course of action for an unmatched applicant was completion of a general surgery intern year (43%) or a year of research (31%). Program directors were more likely than chairpersons to recommend a year of research (P value 0.014). Ninety-seven percent of the respondents felt it was important or essential to obtain new letters of recommendation. Respondents ranked poor interview skills as the most common reason for applicants remaining unmatched (29%). Otolaryngology residency match is even more competitive for previously unmatched applicants. Unmatched applicants should be advised to proceed with either a research year or postgraduate year 1 general surgery year. Before applying again, applicants should obtain new letters of recommendation, and the importance of improving poor interviewing skills should be emphasized by advisors. N/A.

Global health initiatives of US otolaryngology residency programs: 2011 global health initiatives survey results

The objectives of this work were to quantify the involvement of US otolaryngology residency programs in global health endeavors, identify goals and services provided, and determine the participation of residents and fellows. Cross-sectional survey of US otolaryngology faculty. A 10-point online questionnaire was distributed to 103 US otolaryngology residency program directors; all faculty involved in global health volunteerism were invited to participate. Twenty-nine global health initiatives were represented. Most of the 24 residency programs involved (66%) had organized global health offices at their institutions; only 4% actually cooperated with these offices. Most often, only one attending (55%) was involved at each institution. Residents/fellows participated 65% of the time. Abroad, US otolaryngologists worked with freestanding hospitals or clinics (24%), American nongovernmental organizations (17%), academic centers (14%), and remote locations (14%). Most (96%) provided specialty surgical services, but some provided primary care (28%) and general surgical services (14%); 72% trained foreign surgeons. Most respondents (79%) reported that the clinical work done abroad was substantial enough for Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) standards. Only one fifth of respondents knew the name of the nearest otolaryngology training institution. Humanitarian aid was the most prevalent goal (100%), followed by resident/fellow exchange (45%) and faculty exchange (21%). At least a quarter of US otolaryngology residency programs engage in global health volunteerism. Most do not utilize institutional global health resources and are unaware of otolaryngology training programs abroad. There may be a role for global health education within the ACGME competency of systems-based practice.

Attrition in Otolaryngology Residency

Attrition is a disruptive problem in residency training programs. Resident attrition has been more thoroughly investigated and reported in other medical fields with limited data specific to otolaryngology. Using a Web-based survey of otolaryngology residency program directors, information regarding a 5-year cohort of residents was collected. The survey response rate was 61% (59 of 97 programs), representing 779 of 1239 training positions (63%). Forty-two percent of responding programs (25 of 59) lost a total of 47 residents (range, 1-7; mode 1). The overall attrition rate was 6% for the 5-year cohort (47 of 779) or 1.2% annually. Involuntary attrition affected 6 residents. Eighteen residents voluntarily left for other medical programs. Four left medicine entirely. The remaining 19 residents' career paths were not described. Attrition within otolaryngology occurs with less frequency than general surgery and is likely comparable to other surgical subspecialties.

Program Directors??? Opinions about Surgical Competency in Otolaryngology Residents

The purpose of this study was to determine whether certain surgical procedures could be used as benchmark skills to monitor resident progress in developing surgical competency. Survey. A two-stage survey was sent to otolaryngology residency program directors in the United States. Respondents were given a list of otolaryngology surgical procedures monitored by the American Board of Otolaryngology (ABO) and were asked to indicate whether they felt residents should be able to do each as a primary surgeon. The appropriate level of training for competency in each procedure and estimated number of procedures to competency was indicated by respondents. Respondents selected 16 common procedures they felt residents at different levels of training should be able to perform independently. There were discrepancies between estimated number of procedures needed for competence and the numbers reported by ABO graduates. Surgical skill is one aspect of clinical competency, and this indicates agreement among program directors with regard to a set of benchmark skills we can use for concentrated evaluation efforts.

Program director’s opinions on surgical competency in otolaryngology residents

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine if certain surgical procedures could be used as benchmark skills to monitor resident progress in developing surgical competency. Methods: A survey was sent to otolaryngology residency program directors in the US. Respondents were given a list of otolaryngology surgical procedures as monitored by the ABO, where the median number done by graduating residents in 2002 was 2 or greater, and were asked to check off whether they felt residents should be able to do each as a primary surgeon. The appropriate level of training for competency in each procedure was chosen by respondents. Results: Respondents selected a number of procedures that they felt residents at each level of training should be able to perform independently. In order to be useful in evaluation, these procedures need to be widely done across training programs, and done in sufficient numbers so that competency achievement is possible. Conclusion: With changes in the structure of residency, including reduction of work hours, there is a greater need to use curricular time efficiently. Agreement with regard to benchmark skills allows us to concentrate evaluation efforts in these areas. Surgical skill is one aspect of clinical competency, and this survey is one of many ways to achieve consensus toward developing new evaluation methods.

The Use of Part I National Board Scores in the Selection of Residents in Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology

A survey of ophthalmology and otolaryngology residency program directors was conducted to determine the extent to which National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) Part I scores are used in selection of residents in these highly competitive specialty fields. Results from 218 completed questionnaires representing nearly 90% of all US ophthalmology and otolaryngology/head and neck surgery programs were analyzed. More than three fourths indicated that Part I NBME scores were used in selecting residents; more than half of the programs used these scores as a means to determine whom to interview. The direct use of NBME scores in the residency application process is widespread; however, such use of NBME scores is not consistent with the purposes of the National Board. The preeminent role of the faculty in the evaluation of medical students and in the assessment of their clinical competence needs emphasis.