Residency Application Process Research Articles

Bureaucratic Violence in the Residency Application Process: Findings from a Mixed Methods Cross-Sectional Survey of Migrant Women in Spain

Bureaucratic violence linked to immigration systems and residency applications, such as confusing and cumbersome administrative processes, discriminatory practices and a lack of accountability, act as significant post-migration stressors in destination countries that can impact migrant wellbeing. The behavior of public officials within these systems, referred to as ‘street-level bureaucrats’, can amplify stress through the use of discretion in interpreting legal requirements. The experiences of migrant women in attempting to obtain resident status in Spain have not been well documented. This article makes a novel contribution to the literature by aiming to understand the barriers faced by migrant women when applying for residency in Spain, and how experiences differ by socio-demographic subgroups. The study analysed mixed-methods data collected via an online survey of migrant women living in Valencia, Spain. A lack of information, communication barriers and difficulty meeting the stringent requirements of visa applications emerged as some of the main barriers to residency, with women from Africa, Asia or the Middle East being most likely to encounter barriers. Policy makers should seek to enhance transparency, standardize processes and improve communication for migrants interacting with the immigration system in order to reduce barriers and create more accessible pathways to residency in Spain.

Obstetrics and gynecology clerkship directors’ experiences advising residency applicants

The evolving landscape of application processes for obstetrics and gynecology residency applicants poses many challenges for applicants and advisors. The lack of data coordination among national groups creates crucial gaps in information for stakeholder groups. This study aimed to identify the current state of the advising milieu for obstetrics and gynecology residency applicants and their career advisors, the annual Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics survey focused on US clerkship directors' experiences advising students through these processes. A 23-item anonymous survey was developed that asked respondents about demographics and outcomes for the students that they advised through the 2021 application process and their experiences with dual applicants and students not matching. The survey was sent electronically to all obstetrics and gynecology clerkship directors with active Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics memberships in April 2021. Of 224 total clerkship directors, 143 (63.8%) responded to the survey, Of the 143 respondents, almost all (136 [95.1%]) served as career advisors, and 50 (35.0%) were aware of students dual applying. Furthermore, obstetrics and gynecology was rarely the backup to a more competitive specialty. For the 2021 application cycle, 79 of 143 respondents (55.2%) reported having students not successfully match into obstetrics and gynecology, with "academic concerns" followed by "poor communication skills" as the primary reasons cited for students not matching. This snapshot of clerkship directors' experiences advising students in the residency application process reveals notably high rates of dual applicants and students not matching into obstetrics and gynecology. This work fills key gaps in our knowledge of current processes and highlights the importance of career advising at multiple points during the application process.

The clinical anatomy fellowship: A participants' perspective.

Kansas City University offers a Clinical Anatomy Fellowship which enrolls nine medical students during each academic year and provides training in research, teaching, and advanced anatomical topics. The Fellows practice as novice educators, working alongside Anatomy faculty to teach medical students in the Gross Anatomy laboratory. However, little has been reported related to Fellowship participation and success outcomes. This survey-based study was designed to explore (1) student motivation(s) for pursuing the Fellowship, (2) benefits of participation, and (3) the perceived impact on residency applications and career success. Three unique populations were surveyed. The most important factors driving application to the Fellowship were a desire to increase competitiveness in the residency application process (Likert mean score 4.7-5.0) and a passion for Anatomy (Likert mean score 4.3-4.7). Taking a year away from the College of Osteopathic Medicine curriculum (Likert mean score 4.4) and delaying clinical exposure (Likert mean score 4.2) were the most important deterrents to application. The most reported benefits after program completion included opportunities to build a strong residency application (44% and 50% of Fellows), conduct research (44% and 45% of Fellows), and participate in teaching (11% and 50% of Fellows). 73% of past Fellows matched into their top specialty of choice. Flexibility in the program allows participants to individualize their Fellowship experience to address their personal goals related to residency applications and careers as future physicians. As the results suggest, the Clinical Anatomy Fellowship benefits Fellows, signaling other medical institutions to consider adopting a similar program.

A Call for Standardized Interview Offer Dates in the Neurology Residency Application Process.

The transition to virtual interviewing during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has had desired and undesired effects on the residency application process. By eliminating the immense monetary cost, effort, and time away from rotations required to travel the country, virtual interviewing has

In-person Versus Virtual Interviews in the Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery Residency Application Process: An Applicant Perspective

The purpose of this study is to determine whether in-person vs virtual interviews in the Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery (OMS) residency application process affects an applicant's perspective on a program and his/her comfort level in ranking a program. This study will also look to assess if the continuation of virtual interviews has any socioeconomic impacts on the application pool. This cross-sectional study used a descriptive survey sent to all applicants in the 2022 to 2023 OMS residency application cycle to The Ohio State University OMS Residency Program (OSU OMS). The survey involved both scaled and comparative questions aimed to deduce applicant's preferences on the mode of interview process. Questions were designed to both target an applicant's ability to differentiate programs as well uncover any socioeconomic impacts that the reinstatement of in-person interviews caused. All obtained statistics were computed for data analysis. There were 187 applicants to the OSU OMS program in the 2022 to 2023 cycle. Fifty-four applicants completed responses (response rate = 28.9%). A total of 84.4% of respondents preferred in-person interviews. In-person interviews are the preferred modality for OMS interviews. The ability to experience a program and its faculty and residents in-person proved favorable despite the financial and logistical benefits of virtual interviews.

Intern Experience Reflects Information Gathered During the Virtual Interview Process

The onset of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought many changes to the residency application process including transitioning to a virtual interview platform, which continues today. The transition brought many concerns from general surgery applicants about their ability to obtain adequate information about a program virtually. We sought to characterize how information presented by programs during the first ever virtual interview cycle matched the experience of general surgery interns after training at a program for 1 year. In May of 2022, a survey was distributed to 243 program directors who were asked to forward it to their general surgery categorical interns who matched during the 2021 virtual match cycle. Demographics, resources used to determine an impression of a program, and correlations between information presented virtually and what was subsequently experienced as an intern were collected. Forty-six program directors confirmed forwarding the survey to their categorical interns. A total of 102 general surgery interns completed the survey. Most interns (88.2%) agreed that their experience matched expectations based on information received through the virtual interview process and 98% of interns were satisfied with their experience at their training program. Interviews with faculty (40.0%), residents (68.0%) and the program web site (29.0%) were the top 3 resources used to create the most accurate impression of a program. Interns felt they were well informed during the virtual interview experience about support from fellow residents (84.3%), culture (73.0%), surgical volume (72.5%), and intern operative experience (71.6%). In addition, 65.7% of participants thought they were able to obtain a good understanding of the program's culture from the virtual process. However, 16.7% thought that their program unintentionally misrepresented aspects of the training program. The faculty and residency interviews were the most important factors in program ranking and most participants agreed that their virtual interview experience matched their expectations during their intern year. Most interns felt they were able to obtain a good understanding of the program's culture from the virtual process. In addition, a majority of interns felt well informed during the interview on aspects ranging from surgical volume, autonomy, and work hours to support from faculty and residents. If virtual interviews are to continue, residents can be satisfied that information gathered virtually will match the reality of their training. Programs should continue to make every effort to present their program realistically.

Predictors of Matching into Anesthesiology and Surgery: Analysis of One Program's Results

The objectives of this study were to use a multivariable regression model to determine what application factors made anesthesiology and surgery applicants more or less likely to match into an anesthesiology or surgery residency program. Surgery and Anesthesiology applicants listed on the final National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Rank Order Lists from WMC in the 2020-2021 application cycle were included in analysis. All applicant data were collected through the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS). All ERAS and letters of recommendation (LOR) data were deidentified and LOR were subsequently inputted into a linguistics software to analyze the language use in LOR. Descriptive analyses were conducted to compare variables between applicants that matched to a specific residency program and those who matched elsewhere. A multivariable regression model was then used to determine characteristics of anesthesiology and surgery applicants that were indicative of matching to a specific rank of residency program. A total of 116 anesthesiology and 78 surgery applicants were included in final analysis. Analysis of anesthesiology applicants yielded four significant application characteristics that influenced matching to a higher or lower ranked residency program: USMLE Step 2 CK scores, medical school attended, insight category words in LOR, and anger category words in LOR. Similarly, analysis of surgery applicants yielded four significant characteristics: Race, USMLE Step 1 scores, insight category words, and see category words. Our results demonstrated that specialties of anesthesiology and surgery considered different metrics regarding the residency application process. Among the many factors that were analyzed, USMLE scores and language in LOR were considered significant in both specialties. As the application process continues to evolve, we may see a shift in what application factors are considered more important than others.

Decoding the Signals: An Analysis of Preference Signaling in the 2023 Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Match.

While previously used in other specialties, the preference signaling program (PSP) was implemented in the 2022 to 2023 orthopaedic surgery residency application process for the first time. The PSP allowed for 30 signaling tokens to be sent by applicants to programs of their choice to indicate particular interest in a program. It remains unknown how the PSP affects applicants and programs in the orthopaedic surgery residency match. Thus, this study's purpose was to assess the utility of preference signaling within the orthopaedic surgery residency application process in its inaugural year of use. An anonymous electronic survey was emailed to all orthopaedic surgery residency applicants who applied to the authors' institution during the 2022 to 2023 application cycle. The survey was sent after match lists were submitted and closed before the release of match results. The survey collected information regarding applicant demographics, preference signaling habits, and attitude toward preference signaling. The survey was completed by 101 applicants. Applicants applied to a mean of 90 programs (range: 10-197) and received an average of 12 interview invitations (range: 0-39). Applicants almost uniformly used all 30 signals, with nearly two-thirds signaling their home programs (65%, 49/76), and nearly all applicants sending signals to programs at which they performed away rotations (95.7%, 88/92). Applicants received a mean of 9 invitations from programs they signaled, compared with 2 invitations from programs they did not signal. Applicants were significantly more likely to receive an interview invite at a program they signaled than one they did not (p < 0.01). Overall, 57% of applicants (57/101) found the PSP to be helpful, whereas 28% (28/101) found it to be unhelpful, and 16% (16/101) had a neutral opinion. This study reports that the PSP in the 2022 to 2023 orthopaedic surgery match was an effective method of expressing interest in a program because applicants were significantly more likely to receive interview invites to signaled programs. More than half of respondents felt PSP to be helpful; however, the effect on application numbers is still unclear. III.

Attending Perceptions on the Use of Preference Signaling in the Ophthalmology Residency Application Process.

Objective This article characterizes perspectives of ophthalmologists involved in the residency selection process regarding the potential impact of preference signaling on the ophthalmology residency match. Methods An anonymous online questionnaire generated from SurveyMonkey was approved by the Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology (AUPO) Data Resource Committee for distribution to 391 individuals from the AUPO Departmental Chairs, Program Directors, and Directors of Medical Student Education email listservs in August 2022. Results A total of 96 (24.6%) ophthalmology faculty completed the questionnaire. The majority ( n = 76, 79.2%) agreed or strongly agreed that preference signaling should be implemented in the ophthalmology residency application system. Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that preference signaling will allow for more holistic reviews of applications ( n = 55, 57.3%), agreed or strongly agreed that it will benefit applicants who do not have connections to home programs or faculty that can reach out to desired programs ( n = 81, 84.4%), and agreed or strongly agreed that it will improve the distribution of interviews to applicants ( n = 76, 79.2%). Participants agreed or strongly agreed that applicants who have signaled interest in their program will receive preference when offering interviews ( n = 59, 61.5%), and those signals will be used as a tiebreaker for similar applications ( n = 75, 78.1%). The majority of participants believed that the ideal number of preference signals' applicants should be given three to four signals ( n = 35, 36.0%) or five to six signals ( n = 29, 30.2%). Conclusion A majority of ophthalmology faculty surveyed support the integration of preference signaling into the ophthalmology residency match.

Resident Selection Criteria in Veterinary Medicine.

With the continued rise of interest and need for veterinary specialists, information regarding optimal selection criteria for successful residency candidates has been lacking in veterinary medicine. A 28-question online survey was developed to determine prioritized resident selection criteria, the importance of formal interviews, and residency supervisor satisfaction with the current selection process. This survey was sent to all programs listed by the Veterinary Internship and Residency Matching Program (VIRMP) for the 2019-2020 program year. Overall, the most important aspects of the residency application process were (1) letters of recommendation, (2) performance during the interview, (3) personal contact/recommendation from a colleague, (4) personal statement, and (5) demonstrated interest in the residency specialty. While measures of academic performance including GPA and veterinary class rank may play a role in sorting of candidates in more competitive specialties, this does not necessarily exclude them from the ranking process. This information should be helpful to candidates and program directors alike in understanding the success of the current residency candidate selection process.

Evaluating the Utility of Webinars Discussing the Radiation Oncology Residency Application Process in the COVID-19 Era

BackgroundSince the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of digital resources available for medical students (MS) interested in radiation oncology (RO) has increased. Here, we evaluated the utility of webinars focused on educating MS about the RO residency application process.MethodsThe American College of Radiation Oncology hosted webinars in 2021 and 2022 prior to the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) application deadline. For each webinar, program directors gave short presentations about the ERAS application, interviews, and program ranking, and concluded with question and answer session. Participant demographics were collected using live poll questions and understanding was assessed using a Likert scale (range 1 [no, not at all] to 4 [yes, definitely]). Recordings were available online for asynchronous viewing. Differences between groups were assessed using Chi-square statistics.ResultsBetween both webinars, there were a total of 69 participants and 170 asynchronous views. A total of 86% and 71% of participants answered the demographics and understanding questions, respectively. The majority attended medical school within the US (75%), were in their third/fourth year (70%), graduating with an M.D. degree (88%), and planned to apply to RO residency (78%). In terms of baseline knowledge of the application process, 49% believed they knew "a lot," while 51% believed they knew "a little" or "nothing." The majority of participants noted the webinar improved their understanding of the general application process (mean 3.80), the ERAS application (mean 3.65), and the interview process (mean 3.90). For a subset of participants (n=39), survey results were stratified by baseline understanding of the application process ("a little" versus "a lot"). Compared to participants who knew "a lot" about the application process, those that knew "a little" about the process reported higher scores in general understanding (mean 3.80 versus 3.60), ERAS application (mean 3.72 versus 3.50), and interview process (mean 3.93 versus 3.8). However, these differences were not statistically significant.DiscussionAs the number of digital resources in RO increases, we must examine whether they meet the needs of their target audience. Webinars can improve MS understanding of the RO residency application process. These webinars were an ideal format to educate MS about this process because they utilized both attending and resident physicians - two sources of information considered highly trustworthy by MS. Given the recent decline in applications to RO, engaging with MS through dedicated webinars warrants continued exploration. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of digital resources available for medical students (MS) interested in radiation oncology (RO) has increased. Here, we evaluated the utility of webinars focused on educating MS about the RO residency application process. The American College of Radiation Oncology hosted webinars in 2021 and 2022 prior to the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) application deadline. For each webinar, program directors gave short presentations about the ERAS application, interviews, and program ranking, and concluded with question and answer session. Participant demographics were collected using live poll questions and understanding was assessed using a Likert scale (range 1 [no, not at all] to 4 [yes, definitely]). Recordings were available online for asynchronous viewing. Differences between groups were assessed using Chi-square statistics. Between both webinars, there were a total of 69 participants and 170 asynchronous views. A total of 86% and 71% of participants answered the demographics and understanding questions, respectively. The majority attended medical school within the US (75%), were in their third/fourth year (70%), graduating with an M.D. degree (88%), and planned to apply to RO residency (78%). In terms of baseline knowledge of the application process, 49% believed they knew "a lot," while 51% believed they knew "a little" or "nothing." The majority of participants noted the webinar improved their understanding of the general application process (mean 3.80), the ERAS application (mean 3.65), and the interview process (mean 3.90). For a subset of participants (n=39), survey results were stratified by baseline understanding of the application process ("a little" versus "a lot"). Compared to participants who knew "a lot" about the application process, those that knew "a little" about the process reported higher scores in general understanding (mean 3.80 versus 3.60), ERAS application (mean 3.72 versus 3.50), and interview process (mean 3.93 versus 3.8). However, these differences were not statistically significant. As the number of digital resources in RO increases, we must examine whether they meet the needs of their target audience. Webinars can improve MS understanding of the RO residency application process. These webinars were an ideal format to educate MS about this process because they utilized both attending and resident physicians - two sources of information considered highly trustworthy by MS. Given the recent decline in applications to RO, engaging with MS through dedicated webinars warrants continued exploration. Disclosure: Razavian: none, Schutz: none, Chang: none, Benitez: none, Sandoval: none, Sharifzadeh: none, Sherer: none, Merfeld: none, Washington: none, McKenzie: none, Khan: none, Hassanzadeh: none, Arbab: none

"I'd rather see action": Application and recruitment experiences of underrepresented in emergency medicine trainees.

The emergency medicine (EM) physician workforce is largely composed of white men. Despite recruitment efforts over the past decade, there has not been a significant increase of trainees with underrepresented racial and ethnic identities in EM (URM). Prior studies have focused on institutional strategies to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in EM residency recruitment but have been limited in describing URM trainees' perspectives. We sought to assess URM trainees' perspectives on DEI in the EM residency application and selection process. This study was conducted at an urban academic medical center in the United States from November 2021 to March 2022. Junior residents were invited to participate in individual semistructured interviews. We used a combined deductive-inductive approach to categorize responses in predetermined areas of interest then elicit dominant themes within each category through consensus discussions. Thematic saturation was reached after eight interviews, indicating adequate sample size. Ten residents participated in semistructured interviews. All identified as racial or ethnic minorities. Three dominant themes emerged relating to authenticity, representation, and being treated as a learner first. Participants assessed the authenticity of a program's DEI efforts by evaluating the time frame and scope of DEI efforts. Participants reported a desire for representation of other URM colleagues in a residency program and training environment. While participants wanted their lived experience as URM trainees acknowledged, they were wary of being viewed solely through the lens of future DEI leaders rather than as learners first. URM residents value multifaceted commitment to DEI efforts, representation, and being seen as learners first when assessing residency programs. Programs seeking to recruit URM residents should develop a department-wide, multipronged, comprehensive DEI plan and showcase how their program will contribute to an applicant's professional development.

Evaluating the Utility of Webinars on the Radiation Oncology Residency Application Process in the COVID-19 Era

Evaluating the Utility of Webinars on the Radiation Oncology Residency Application Process in the COVID-19 Era

Virtual Interviews: Outcomes and Lessons Learned.

The family medicine residency application process is arduous and competitive. An important part of the application is the in-person interview process, which was affected during the last two interview cycles (2021-2022) due to restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Virtual interviews eliminate traveling costs associated with applications, potentially improving underrepresented minorities' access to interviewing opportunities. Our goal was to assess if virtual interviews at our institution have negative or positive effects on access for underrepresented in medicine (URiM) applicants and our residency match results. Methods: We analyzed data from 2019-2022 to compare application volumes, applicant demographics, and match results between two in-person cycles (2019 and 2020) and two virtual cycles (2021-2022). Data were analyzed using Pearson χ2 criteria and P=.05 defined significance. Differences between years for expected counts were determined using single sample χ2 tests. Results: No statistical significance was noted on number of applications by URiM to our program despite decrease costs associated with virtual interview process. The number of URiM applicants matching to our program did not improve by simply implementing virtual interviews when compared to in-person interview seasons in the past. Virtual interviews at our institution did not increase URiM applications to our program from substantial equivalent medical schools. Further research in this area from programs in other states may enhance our understanding of the impact of virtual interviews on URiM applications to residency and match results.

@NMatch2023: A Student-Led Social Media-Based Initiative to Guide Adult and Child Neurology Residency Applicants and Programs in a Digital Era (P10-2.002)

<h3>Objective:</h3> To describe the expansion of the @NeurologyMatch2023 project in supporting medical students applying to Adult and Child Neurology Residency programs in the United States. To offer recommendations for the online presence of Neurology Programs to encourage engagement with applicants. <h3>Background:</h3> The COVID-19 pandemic has left a lasting impact on the residency application process. Virtual interviews offer a viable alternative to traditional in-person interviews, and residency programs rely on a strong online presence for applicant engagement. @NeurologyMatch is a student-operated, social media initiative to promote networking, education, and information-sharing within the online neurology community. @NMatch2023 has continued to expand and improve this resource for both neurology applicants and residency programs. <h3>Design/Methods:</h3> <h3>Timeline:</h3> <b>May:</b> @NMatch2023 leaders transitioned, Feedback Survey released <b>June:</b> Match Motivation Mondays launched <b>July:</b> Mentorship program launched <b>August:</b> Program calendar and features launched <b>September:</b> NMatch Panel with the PDs <b>October:</b> Data collection <h3>Results:</h3> <h3>Frequent ERAS Questions (n=189):</h3> The most commonly asked questions were about USMLE scores (36.3%), preliminary vs. advanced positions (18.1%) and personal statements (13.7%). <h3>Twitter Analytics:</h3> Since the transition of leadership in May 2022, we had an average of 114 tweets; 140,000 impressions; 49,200 profile visits; 440 mentions; and 295 followers per month. <h3>Instagram Analytics:</h3> Compared to May 2022, our analytics demonstrate a 174% increase in accounts, with 4,443 accounts in the last 90 day period. There was an increase in account engagement by 155%, with a total number of 730. <h3>Conclusions:</h3> Since May 2022, @NMatch2023 experienced a substantial increase in follower activity on Instagram and consistent Twitter engagement. From the applicant perspective, NMatch is a resource to see program highlights and compare programs. From the perspective of Neurology residency programs, NMatch serves as a tool to determine what is important for applicants in choosing a program as well as suggest information their program makes available for student review prior to applying. <b>Disclosure:</b> Miss Goel has nothing to disclose. Miss Pertsovskaya has nothing to disclose. Ms. Mendez Colmenares has nothing to disclose. Melanie Orr has nothing to disclose. Ms. Naveed has nothing to disclose. Mr. Yarlagadda has nothing to disclose. Mr. Emmanuel has nothing to disclose.

Love Letters to Residency Programs: The Value of Letters of Intent in the General Surgery Residency Application Process

Han, Amy Y MD; French, Judith C PhD; Brooks, Nicole; Kojima, Lisa BSE; Lipman, Jeremy Michael MD, MHPE, FACS Author Information

Mentorship is Critical: An Analysis of the 2022 Plastic Surgery Match.

As the second cycle impacted by COVID-19, the 2022 Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) Match maintained virtual interviews while offering a modest lift of subinternship restrictions. The residency application process continues to evolve, with changes such as pass/fail United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 reporting prompting programs to reconsider metrics of applicant success. It is critical to address the impact of board scores, mentorship, and resource availability on a diverse applicant population in the PRS Match. A survey was electronically administered to students applying to a single institutional PRS residency program. The survey inquired about demographics, application statistics, mentorship experience, and match outcomes. Logistic regressions were modeled to assess for odds of matching into plastic surgery. In total, 151 responses were analyzed, a 49.7% response rate. Most participants were female (52.3%), White (68.9%), and not Hispanic/Latino (84.8%). The largest percentage of respondents had a faculty mentor only from their home institution (55.0%) and a resident mentor from only their home institution (32.3%). Participants with a faculty mentor from both a home and outside institution had 7.4 times the odds of matching into PRS ( P = 0.02) than students with no faculty mentorship. Students with dual-institution resident mentorship had 18.5 times higher the odds of matching compared with students with no resident mentorship ( P < 0.001). Subjective metrics, rather than objective scores, had the most influence on successfully matching into plastic surgery. As the PRS Match continues to become increasingly competitive, it behooves programs to provide equitable access to resources such as mentorship.

MP66-14 WEBSITE TRANSPARENCY AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION AMONG UROLOGY RESIDENCY PROGRAMS

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP66-14 WEBSITE TRANSPARENCY AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION AMONG UROLOGY RESIDENCY PROGRAMS Joon Kyung Kim, Benjamin Morrison, Katelyn Spencer, and Benjamin Dropkin Joon Kyung KimJoon Kyung Kim More articles by this author , Benjamin MorrisonBenjamin Morrison More articles by this author , Katelyn SpencerKatelyn Spencer More articles by this author , and Benjamin DropkinBenjamin Dropkin More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003329.14AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, urology residency programs have had to adjust their typical practices, including the adoption of virtual recruiting and interviewing. Such efforts have included utilizing social media and improving program websites, which are often the starting point for potential applicants to obtain information about a program. We sought to evaluate the transparency and quality of information dissemination among urology residency program websites. METHODS: The websites of all 143 non-military, accredited United States urology residency programs were evaluated for various measures grouped into distinct categories including program priorities, program curriculum, program profiles, program quality of life, medical student opportunities, interview process, selection/exclusion criteria, and social media. Programs that have yet to graduate residents were excluded. Programs were separated based on American Urological Association (AUA) section. Percentage values were determined by the number of programs reporting information on a particular measure. RESULTS: The most reported category was program profiles (84%), with many programs providing details such as resident hometowns, faculty research interests, and alumni fellowship matches. The least reported category was selection/exclusion criteria (32%), with 8% of programs discussing a minimum/preferred Step 1 score and 23% discussing osteopathic applicants. Program mission/objective statements, training site locations, and current resident and faculty profiles were subcategories reported by greater than 90% of programs. DEI and wellness initiatives/statements were discussed by 45% and 36% of programs, respectively. For virtual opportunities, 21% of programs provided online open house information, and 85% had an active Twitter account with 34% providing direct links. Average AUA overall transparency was 53.7%, with the Northeastern Section highest at 62.4%. CONCLUSIONS: The importance of transparency and quality of information dissemination is greater than ever with the increasing utilization of virtual formats in the residency application process. Our results indicate several areas of improvement that urology residency programs can amend to provide improved transparency for applicants during the application process. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e938 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Joon Kyung Kim More articles by this author Benjamin Morrison More articles by this author Katelyn Spencer More articles by this author Benjamin Dropkin More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

MP57-08 RECRUITING AND RETAINING LATINX RESIDENTS IN UROLOGY: THE TRAINEE EXPERIENCE

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP57-08 RECRUITING AND RETAINING LATINX RESIDENTS IN UROLOGY: THE TRAINEE EXPERIENCE Gabriela Gonzalez, Mariela Martinez, Kassandra Zaila Ardines, Eric Kurzrock, and Jennifer Anger Gabriela GonzalezGabriela Gonzalez More articles by this author , Mariela MartinezMariela Martinez More articles by this author , Kassandra Zaila ArdinesKassandra Zaila Ardines More articles by this author , Eric KurzrockEric Kurzrock More articles by this author , and Jennifer AngerJennifer Anger More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003310.08AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: In 2018 the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) reported that only 5.8% of physicians and 3.2% of US medical school faculty were of Latinx origin. Literature supports that underrepresented residents face additional training burdens such as microaggressions and minority tax secondary to race/ethnicity. We sought to explore barriers that Latinx urology residents faced while applying to residency and challenges unique to residency training. METHODS: Latinx urology residents (post-graduate year two and above) were recruited from a convenience sample database. Ten semi-structured individual phone interviews were conducted using a topical question guide about medical school urology exposure, residency interview experiences, current residency perspectives, fellowship and future employment plans. Notes and illustrative quotes were taken throughout the interviews as described in Grounded Theory. An iterative line-by-line, open-coding approach of the collected data was completed until saturation was achieved. Initial codes were combined and grouped into thematic categories and subcategories. RESULTS: Our qualitative analysis yielded themes (Table 1) related to the importance of early exposure to urology, the impact of diversity, and mentorship throughout the residency application process and training years. Additional factors affecting fellowship training and future employment plans were identified, such as subspecialty diversity, variable mentorship, financial debt, and working with underserved populations. Challenges unique to first-generation trainees were also characterized, such as family understanding of urologic training and self-navigating spaces. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative analysis of Latinx urology trainees documented unique barriers and experiences that can make residency training more challenging. Strategic planning and development of resources are necessary to support trainees and influence better future academic faculty representation. Source of Funding: n/a © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e787 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Gabriela Gonzalez More articles by this author Mariela Martinez More articles by this author Kassandra Zaila Ardines More articles by this author Eric Kurzrock More articles by this author Jennifer Anger More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

To the Editor: Addressing Limitations of a Standardized Letter of Recommendation.

We would like to thank the authors of the recent article “A Call to Action for Standardizing Letters of Recommendation”1 for their thoughtful summary of the current evidence for standardized letters for residency applications and their call for adoption across more specialties. While we agree that standardized letters overall demonstrate an improvement over the narrative letter of recommendation and that their adoption will likely lead to improvements in the residency selection process, the standardized letter should not be viewed as a panacea for discriminatory practices. Respectfully, their article does not address the negative aspects of standardized letters—particularly the structural bias in this evaluation tool. Further, without acknowledging and addressing the downside of tools currently in use, we lose an opportunity to improve these tools as we seek an equitable future in medical education.Specifically, the authors mention the need to address bias, “which may affect UIM (underrepresented in medicine) applicants.” This statement is unassailable; however, changing to a standardized letter alone will not mitigate racial/ethnic bias. Our recent article provided evidence that the emergency medicine standardized letter of evaluation (EM SLOE) demonstrates differences in rankings by race/ethnicity.2 Additionally, studies have highlighted gender bias in EM SLOE comparative rankings as well as in the narrative portion of the letter.3,4 Calls for all specialties to create a SLOE need to acknowledge these limitations. Conceding the limitations of the SLOE is vital so that those creating new standardized letters for their specialties can work to mitigate existing bias. Our article details an approach that may help to mitigate bias in new standardized assessment tools.2Further, the authors here do acknowledge that standardized letters do not stop authors from “inflating students' qualifications,” but stop short of acknowledging the limited validity evidence currently supporting the EM SLOE.5 Fully appreciating the limitations of this tool will help future users design a standardized letter that has better value in measuring what program directors value in a residency applicant.We agree with the authors that more specialties should look to implement a standardized letter to improve the residency application process. However, it is important to learn from the past so that we may create the best possible tools to promote equity within medical education.We express our gratitude to the authors of the article, “Racial Bias on the Emergency Medicine Standardized Letter of Evaluation,” published in this journal around the same time as our Perspectives article. The findings shared by Kukulski et al are critical to continue assessing the validity of the emergency medicine standardized letter of evaluation (EM SLOE) and highlight key areas in need of further improvement. We agree that the development, implementation, and continuous refinement of SLOEs for other specialties must be informed by the totality of the available evidence in the literature. While it is encouraging that prior studies have found evidence that SLOEs potentially help mitigate gender bias and improve discrimination between applicants, they must be designed to facilitate and promote a holistic review of each applicant.1-3 The threats to validity posed by systemic racism and individual implicit biases must be identified, assessed, and addressed throughout the process, from design to implementation, with an important focus on faculty development integrated within an anti-racist framework.4 We pose our call to action to graduate medical education program leaders and educational scholars to collaborate, not only in the process of developing and integrating further SLOEs, but also rigorously evaluating these tools to promote continuous refinement. We thank our colleagues who authored “Racial Bias on the Emergency Medicine Standardized Letter of Evaluation” for being on the leading edge of this important frontier.Melissa M. Tavarez, MD, MSAline Baghdassarian, MD, MPHJessica Bailey, MDDerya Caglar, MDMichelle Eckerle, MD, MPHAndrea Fang, MDKatherine McVety, MDJoshua Nagler, MD, MHPEdThuy L. Ngo, DO, MEdJerri A. Rose, MDCindy Ganis Roskind, MDFrances Turcotte Benedict, MD, MPHJo-Ann O. Nesiama, MD, MSAnita A. Thomas, MD MPHMelissa L. Langhan, MD, MHS