Residency Program Selection Research Articles

What Military Applicants Value When Choosing a Residency in Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics.

Military medical students participate in a separate residency match program, distinct from their civilian counterparts. There is limited information regarding factors that applicants find important when selecting a residency program in Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics (GSO). We aimed to identify factors that influence applicant program selection. A voluntary, anonymous, 45-question survey was distributed to military candidates pursuing GSO residency training in the fall of 2023. Participants were asked to rate the factors they considered most important when ranking residency programs. Thirty-seven of the sixty (61.7%) applicants completed the survey. The culture of the residency program was deemed "important" by most participants (94.6%), followed by surgical volume (70.3%) and obstetric volume (70.3%). When asked to rank selection factors, the culture of the residency program, geographic location, and surgical volume were among the top 5 influential factors for the majority of applicants. Participants considered the following factors "not important": Salary (military pay versus civilian salary) (43.2%), research opportunities (32.4%), and availability of abortion training (21.6%). Most military applicants (62.2%) stated that abortion restrictions would not affect program selection, while 37.8% reported that this would affect their rankings. Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics military applicants deemed the residency program's culture, surgical volume, and obstetrical volume to be the most important factors impacting residency program selection. Residency programs can use these findings to promote program strengths, improve program shortfalls, and guide applicant recruitment.

Exploring Social Media's Influence on Ophthalmology Residency Program Selection

Exploring Social Media's Influence on Ophthalmology Residency Program Selection

Bridge to M4 (B2M4): An innovative residency application preparation curriculum.

The medical residency application process is daunting, time-consuming, and variable, making mentorship in preparation for this process important. In light of changes to the residency application process due to the COVID-19 pandemic, medical students identified a need to create a formal residency application preparation curriculum. The curriculum focused on reflection, while also furthering professional development and preparing for the nuances of the residency application cycle through structured advising. Bridge to M4 (B2M4) included reflective activities to help guide curriculum vitae (CV) refinement, personal and professional values clarification, residency program exploration, elevator pitch formation, personal statement development, mentor identification, guidance on requesting letters of recommendation, and virtual residency interview preparation. The B2M4 elective first took place in June 2020 with 36 rising fourth year students enrolled. Perceived effectiveness of the curriculum was assessed by having student cohorts evaluate the importance of the CV, personal statement, general preparation, and residency program selection before and after the course. Student feedback was reviewed with content analysis, which highlighted the usefulness of a structured residency preparation course that was rooted in reflection and incorporated faculty mentorship and feedback. This student-driven, innovative curricular design provided students the opportunity to prepare for the residency application process through reflective activities including values clarification, strengths identification, and goal setting. B2M4 demonstrates a process that can be used not only during the Residency Match process, but also throughout graduate medical education and future career decisions.

Identifying factors influencing orthodontic residency program selection.

The desirability of Orthodontic Residency remains high today relative to the past 30 years. This investigation seeks to re-assess factors influencing Orthodontic Residency program selection amidst contemporary challenges and changes, including increasing student debt, reduced residency stipends, and shifting practice models. This mixed-methods study consisted of interviews (qualitative) and surveys (quantitative). Fifteen final-year dental students and first-year orthodontic residents were interviewed one-on-one following a topic guide and then transcripts were analyzed using MAXQDA2022 to identify values, factors, and influences related to program selection and ranking. Qualitative findings and previous studies provided the basis for a survey distributed to residency applicants in 2020-22. Data were analyzed with bivariate and descriptive statistics with stratification by debt group. Interviews (N=15) elevated the importance of location, interview experience, program cost, and clinical education. Surveys (N=239) identified the most desirable factors for program selection: satisfied residents, strong clinical training with multiple techniques, good interview impressions, low cost, high patient numbers, a strong reputation, and good clinical facilities with new technology. Less desirable factors include programs that are hospital-based, certificate-only, research-intensive, and require considerable after-hours work. Clinical education and interview experiences are key for residency selection, consistent with prior studies, though program cost has grown in importance. Findings can help guide orthodontic programs in recruiting applicants and suggest a need to limit educational costs.

Investigating factors that influence residency program selection among medical students

BackgroundsMedical students and interns face several decisions during their career development. One of the most critical decisions they have to make is choosing a residency program that suits their career goals and aspirations. The selection process can be challenging, as several factors can influence the decision-making process. There was limited research on the role of GPA and opportunities in residency program selection. Therefore, this study examines the factors that influence interns’ and 5th-year medical students’ choices of residency programs.MethodsObservational and analytical cross-sectional studies were conducted at King Saud University (KSU) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A sample of 5th-year medical students as well as medical interns was included in the study. This study only includes students who were interested in choosing a residency program in one of these eight domains: Medicine, Family Medicine, Orthopedics, Pediatrics, Radiology, Surgery, Obstetrics/Gynecology, and Ophthalmology.ResultsThe total number of students with 5th-year medical students was 205 (60.1%) and the number of students with medical interns was 135 (39.5%). The majority of students (51.0%) had a GPA above 4.5 out of 5, followed by 3.5 to 4.5 among 146 (42.8) students, and only 21 (6.2) had a GPA below 3.5. Those students with less than a 3.5 GPA out of 5 were found not to have any favorite residency program specialties when it came to academic achievement. Furthermore, in the case of those students whose GPA was 3.5 to 4.5, they had a certain mindset when it came to choosing a residency program. A 1.9 times greater likelihood of selecting obstetrics and gynecology (OR = 1.9, p = 0.19) was achieved by students with GPAs between 3.5 and 4.5, followed by a 1.5 times greater probability of selecting radiology (OR = 1.5; p = 0.55). High achievers, ophthalmology (OR = 1.7; p = 0.32) and surgery (OR = 1.4; p = 0.31) were the most popular residency programs. A student with a high GPA (mean score = 7.3) also chooses his or her career based on better opportunities than a student with a low GPA (mean score = 6.8).ConclusionsThe study highlights the correlation between academic achievement and preferred specialties for future careers among medical students. While the study’s findings should be considered in the context of various other factors such as lifestyle, social life, and income can influence students’ preferred specialties for residency programs.

Needs and Experiences of United States Female Urology Residents

To identify factors influencing residency training program selection by women residents in urology and to evaluate the residents' gender-based experiences during training. Urology remains a disproportionately male-physician-dominated field. Understanding the needs and experiences of women residents is essential for developing strategies to recruit and retain more women urologists in independent practice. An anonymous, 15-item web-based electronic survey was posted on social media and distributed via institutional email addresses between May and July 2021, targeted to all 461 current women U.S. urology residents. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistical methods and thematic analysis, respectively. 147 complete responses were received. The most important factors influencing initial residency training program selection included geographic location/setting (37%) and institutional reputation (27%), compared to number of women faculty (3.4%) and women residents (0%). However, respondents cited a need for increased presence of women faculty and mentorship (36%), elimination of gender bias/harassment in the workplace (33%), and improved family support/maternity leave policies (15%) during residency to better foster clinical and academic growth of women residents. In interactions with patients, 97% reported not being recognized as a doctor, 84% reported stereotyping of women doctors, and 78% reported experiencing inappropriate treatment/harassment from male patients. Geographic setting and institutional reputation were the most important factors for residency program selection by women urology residents. Although overlooked as a priority during the initial application process, current women urology residents seek increased women faculty presence, leadership and mentorship during residency to foster clinical and academic growth. Women residents face extremely high rates of gender bias and harassment in the workplace.

A survey on preferences, attitudes, and perspectives of Italian urology trainees: implications of the novel national residency matching program.

Since 2014, a new residency program selection process has been established with a national examination. The aim of this study was to assess characteristics, career goals, and practice preferences of current Italian urology residents. A web-based survey of 25 items performed from May 2021 to September 2021 was sent to 585 Italian urology residents. Descriptive analyses were conducted to describe the surveys' domains: demographics characteristics, studies, plans for fellowship training, interest in the urology field, and career expectations. Four hundred and one residents completed the online survey (response rate 68.5%). Most residents were male (70.3%), with a median of 29 (IQR 28-31) years. Urology was the first chosen School in 325 (81.0%) cases, and 174 (43.4%) trainees have chosen to remain in the same University. Uro-oncology was the main field, and endourology the main subspeciality of interest, respectively. More than 40.0% of residents expressed a good level of satisfaction for the training urological course. 232 (57.2%) residents were strongly interested in seeking a hospital career, followed by private career (43.4%) and academic career (20%). After the introduction of the novel national residency matching program the Italian Urology trainees showed a good satisfaction level. Further improvements of the Italian residency programs should be focused on the training network within and outside the main School of Urology.

(178) Prospective Urology Resident Exposure to Genital Gender Affirming Surgery

Abstract Introduction Genital gender affirming surgery (GGAS) is a component of transgender and gender expansive healthcare. Transgender health has been increasingly covered in undergraduate medical school curricula, however the prevalence of education on GGAS is not well known. We sought to learn about urology applicants’ exposure to GGAS. Objective To investigate prospective urology resident exposure to GGAS and impact on residency applications. Methods An online Redcap survey was distributed via Twitter in Spring 2022. Recent or prospective urology residency applicants were invited to participate. The survey collected demographic data and assessed level of exposure to GGAS in medical school and perceived importance of GGAS training in choice of urology residency program. Results 42 respondents completed the survey. 21.4% (9) of respondents identified as a member of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex and Asexual (LGBTQIA) community. 73.8% (31) identified as White. 59.5% (25) reported experience with LGBTQ health. 59.5% (25) reported no clinical or didactic exposure to GGAS. 57.1% (24) reported training in GGAS was “moderately important” to “extremely important” in their selection of residency programs. Didactic exposure to GGAS was weakly associated with importance of GGAS training (LR 0.335, p = 0.03). LGBTQIA respondents were more likely to have greater didactic exposure to GGAS (LR 7.776, p = 0.021). Conclusions The majority of respondents had no clinical or didactic exposure to GGAS in medical school. Over half of respondents indicated that GGAS was an important factor in residency program selection. Our findings emphasize the importance of GGAS training as part of comprehensive urology graduate medical education. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Boston Scientific.

The 2021 Podiatric Residency Candidate and Program Virtual Interview Experience During COVID-19 with Multispecialty Reflections and Recommendations for a Successful Virtual Match.

The coronavirus disease of 2019 pandemic impacted all facets of health care in the United States, including the professional training for podiatry residents and students. In March of 2020, the Association of American Medical Colleges recommended pausing then modifying all clinical rotations. The podiatric community followed suit. In-person restrictions, cancellations of clerkships, limited clinical experiences, virtual didactic programs, and reduced surgical cases for students and residency programs occurred for many months during the ongoing pandemic. These adaptations impacted the ability of podiatric students to complete clinical rotations and clerkships, which are pivotal to their academic curriculum and residency program application and selection. A survey was conducted by the Council of Teaching Hospitals (COTH) and sent out by the American Association of Colleges of Podiatric Medicine. The 2021 postinterview surveys were sent out to all participants in the 2021 Centralized Application Service for Podiatric Residencies Web application and match cycle, both programs and candidates. The COTH presents results and comments from the 2021 virtual interview experience and residency match. Data and anecdotal comments from the 2021 postinterview survey conducted by COTH, sent out by American Association of Colleges of Podiatric Medicine, are presented here. Results from the surveys of program directors and candidates show a preference by both groups for in-person interviews despite the personal time demands and increased costs associated with travel.

Assessing the Effect of Abortion Restrictions: Improving Methodology and Expanding Outcomes.

Assessing the Effect of Abortion Restrictions: Improving Methodology and Expanding Outcomes.

Bias Breakers: Continuous Practice for Admissions and Selection Committees.

Admissions and selection committees face challenges in identifying and mitigating biases in policies, processes, and discussions. Past bias training has focused on defining bias and presenting the negative impact of bias for committees. This interactive training used committee comments, reflection, and audience response to enhance the contextual recognition of bias in admissions and selection processes and practices. For each bias type, we presented specific mitigation strategies and examples. The workshop was offered at four medical schools between December 2020 and April 2021. Participants were committee members (n = 126), largely medical school faculty, involved in MD, MD/PhD, and residency program selection at participating schools. A paired pre- and postworkshop assessment was conducted for each session to determine effectiveness of the workshop. Mean scores for each of the postassessment items ranged from 4.0 to 4.2 and were statistically significantly different from the preassessment scores per respective item. The results of a paired two-way t test found that these pre- to postworkshop assessment score increases were statistically significant across all assessment questions (ps < .001). Participants reported in their comments that the workshop was effective in establishing a safe and judgment-free learning environment to explore and identify biases and build skills and confidence for mitigating them. Interactive and applied bias training can be an effective strategy to advance committee culture and practice in recognizing and mitigating bias. This workshop provides committees with ongoing tools for equity practice in selection and decision-making.

Perceptions of bias in the selection of international medical graduate residency applicants in Canada.

In Canada, international medical graduates (IMG) consist of immigrant-IMG and previous Canadian citizens/permanent residents who attended medical school abroad (CSA). CSA are more likely to obtain a post-graduate residency position than immigrant-IMG and previous studies have suggested that the residency selection process favours CSA over immigrant-IMG. This study explored potential sources of bias in the residency program selection process. We conducted semi-structured interviews with senior administrators of clinical assessment and post-graduate programs across Canada. We asked about perceptions of the background and preparation of CSA and immigrant-IMG, methods applicants use to improve likelihood of obtaining residency positions, and practices that may favour/discourage applicants. Interviews were transcribed and a constant comparative method was employed to identify recurring themes. Of a potential 22 administrators, 12 (54.5%) completed interviews. Five key factors that may provide CSA with an advantage were: reputation of the applicant's medical school, recency of graduation, ability to complete undergraduate clinical placement in Canada, familiarity with Canadian culture, and interview performance. Although residency programs prioritize equitable selection, they may be constrained by policies designed to promote efficiencies and mitigate medico-legal risks that inadvertently advantage CSA. Identifying the factors behind these potential biases is needed to promote an equitable selection process.

Virtual vascular surgery interest group during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

ObjectivesEarly exposure to vascular surgery at the medical student level positively influences one’s decision to apply into an integrated vascular surgery residency program. Vascular surgery interest groups (VSIGs) are student-run and aim to facilitate such exposure, traditionally via in-person events. Social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted these interactions. This is a description of the virtual activities of a VSIG group during the 2020-2021 academic year and highlights their impact among medical students.MethodsThe virtual activities of the VSIG at the Yale School of Medicine were reviewed. Students received surveys prior and after activities to assess their impact. Pre- and post-activity surveys using Likert scale (1 = completely disagree; 5 = completely agree) were administered and compared. Statistical significance was achieved with p< 0.05.ResultsA total of five virtual events were held: Introductory Session (October 2020), a Simulation Session (November 2020), a Research Night (January 2021), a Journal Club (February 2021), and a National Match Panel (April 2021). The surveys of three events (Introductory Session, Simulation Session, and National Match Panel) were analyzed. Attendance at these events were 18, 55, and 103 respectively. The average pre-survey response was 51.2% and the average post-survey response rate was 27.46%. Students agreed that the Introductory Session increased their knowledge about vascular surgery as a subspecialty (4.22 ± 0.67) and that the session was valuable to their time (4.33 ± 1.00). The Simulation Session increased student’s comfort with knot tying from 1.73 ± 0.89 to 3.21 ± 1.25 (p < 0.001). Students reported an increased understanding of residency program selection (2.39 ± 1.10 vs. 3.21 ± 1.12, p = 0.018), the ERAS application (2.16 ± 1.01 vs. 3.00 ± 0.88, p = 0.007), and letters of recommendation (2.45 ± 1.07 vs. 3.14 ± 1.17, p = 0.04). Students particularly had a significant increase in the understanding of the logistics of residency interviews which were held virtually that year for the first time (1.84 ± 0.96 vs. 3.29 ± 1.20, p < 0.001).ConclusionsVirtual VSIG activities were feasible and effective during the pandemic in promoting student engagement and interest in vascular surgery. Despite lifting social distancing measures, the virtual format could become a valuable tool to expand outreach efforts of the vascular surgery community to recruit talented medical students.

MP10-19 NEEDS AND EXPERIENCES OF U.S. FEMALE UROLOGY RESIDENTS

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 May 2022MP10-19 NEEDS AND EXPERIENCES OF U.S. FEMALE UROLOGY RESIDENTS Michelle Sheng, Almira Catic, Dattatraya Patil, Lindsey Hartsell, and Akanksha Mehta Michelle ShengMichelle Sheng More articles by this author , Almira CaticAlmira Catic More articles by this author , Dattatraya PatilDattatraya Patil More articles by this author , Lindsey HartsellLindsey Hartsell More articles by this author , and Akanksha MehtaAkanksha Mehta More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002532.19AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Urology remains a disproportionately male-physician dominated field, with women physicians comprising only 10% of all practicing urologists and 27% of current urology residents. Understanding the needs and experiences of women residents is essential for developing strategies to recruit and retain more women urologists in independent practice. The primary objective of this study was to identify factors influencing residency training program selection by women residents in urology. The secondary objective was to evaluate the residents’ gender-based experiences during training. METHODS: An anonymous, 15-item web-based electronic survey was distributed between May-July 2021, targeted to all 461 current women U.S. urology residents. Both quantitative and qualitative data was collected and analyzed using descriptive statistical methods and thematic analysis, respectively. RESULTS: 147 complete responses were received from women residents representing each of the 8 AUA sections. When asked to rank a series of factors influencing their decision about residency training program selection, 37% of respondents chose geographic location/setting as the most important factor, followed by 27% who selected institutional reputation. Surprisingly, only 3.4% ranked number of women faculty and 0% ranked number of women residents as most important factor in their decision. When asked how their current programs can better foster clinical and academic growth of women residents, the most common responses were increased presence of women faculty and mentorship (36%), increased awareness and elimination of gender bias/harassment in the workplace (33%), and improved family support/maternity leave policies (15%). Regarding challenges in the workplace, 73.5% of respondents reported experiencing stereotyping of women doctors and 18% reported experiencing problems with maternity leave. In interactions with patients, 97% reported not being recognized as a doctor, 84% reported stereotyping of women doctors, and 78% reported experiencing inappropriate treatment/harassment from male patients. CONCLUSIONS: Women residents face extremely high rates of gender bias and harassment in the workplace. Geographic setting and institutional reputation were the most important factors for residency program selection by women urology residents. Although overlooked as a priority during the initial application process, current women urology residents seek increased women faculty presence, leadership and mentorship during residency to foster clinical and academic growth. Source of Funding: N/A © 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 207Issue Supplement 5May 2022Page: e154 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2022 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Michelle Sheng More articles by this author Almira Catic More articles by this author Dattatraya Patil More articles by this author Lindsey Hartsell More articles by this author Akanksha Mehta More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...

The Important Factors Applicants Consider When Choosing a Residency: A Survey Study.

While medical school graduates compete to get matched into the best residency programs, programs also compete to attract the best applicants. The applicant's decision to rank their programs of interest is determined by several factors, many of which are not always apparent. This study aimed to evaluate significant factors involved in an applicant's residency program selection. A 12-question survey was sent between June 2020 and September 2020 to all first-year internal medicine residents in the United States (US) through an online national database of residencies using the Survey Monkey platform. We asked them to rank the most significant factors that enticed or deterred them from choosing a specific program. We also compared domestic with international medical graduate (IMG) average ranked responses wherein differences were evaluated using an independent two mean samples t-test. The association between outcomes and predictors was analyzed using Pearson's correlation and chi-square analysis. Out of 9,127 residents, 102 responded to the survey, which equaled a 1.11% response rate. The findings showed that the location, culture, and organization of a program are high-value factors for applicants. Salary, the number of cases seen, and friends near the residency location were not.There are statistically significant differences between graduates of US medical schools and IMG applicants, with the former placing higher importance on the quality of life during residency. Male and female residents also have different priorities with the latter emphasizing program culture and work environment improvement.Residents who chose programs based on academic competitiveness also placed significance on the prestige of the program (r = 0.418, P < .001), program organization/structure (r = 0.3, P = .006), fellowship match rate (r = 0.307, P = .006) and word of mouth (r = 0.520, P < .001). Residents who chose programs based on program culture also put an emphasis on the perceived happiness of the residents (r = 0.450, P = 0.001), and work-life balance (r = 0.359, P = .004). Programs can attract stronger applicants if they emphasize modifiable factors that are important to potential residents.

Global Pandemic and Plastic Surgery Residency Match: Can Social Media Fill the Void?

BackgroundThe type of content that influences plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) residency program selection and attracts applicants is everchanging and not clearly understood. Further, the COVID-19 pandemic had a major impact on residency selection that is undetermined.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine to what degree and the type of PRS SM content that drives prospective applicants’ interest of a residency program, especially in the context of COVID-19.MethodsProspective PRS residency applicants were surveyed anonymously.ResultsAn average of 60% of respondents reported that PRS social media (SM) content influenced their perception of a program. Fifty-eight percent reported that resident lifestyle content made them gain interest in a program. Separately, 32% reported that resident lifestyle content influenced them to rank a program higher. Seventy-two percent of respondents claimed SM content did not make them lose interest in a program. Rarely posting, outdated content, and lack of engagement were cited as factors for loss of interest in a program. A majority of respondents (53%) reported wanting to see more resident life and culture content on SM. Of the existing PRS SM content, respondents were most interested in resident lifestyle, followed by clinical and program-specific content.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic amplified the importance of SM PRS residency selection. Resident lifestyle content was consistently indicated as more likely to make respondents gain interest in a program, rank a program higher, and as the most desired content. PRS programs will benefit from highlighting resident camaraderie, quality of life, hobbies, and lifestyle to attract applicants.

Selection criteria and match results for postgraduate residency programs: A cross-sectional model from a major academic center in Jordan

BackgroundWith the continuous uptrend in the number of medical student graduates and the limited availability of postgraduate residency positions, the process of selecting the most appropriately qualified candidates to fill these positions remains challenging. This necessitates implementing objectively measured, distinguishing, and transparent selection process. The purpose of this study is to share our model of single-center resident selection for postgraduate residency programs to serve as a guide for other institutions. Materials and methodsWe reviewed the process of residency program selection at our institution. Data were collected about the application process, demographic characteristics, medical school location and GPA, entry exam score, requested specialties, and match results. The proposed selection criteria and their association with the match results were reported. Factors associated with matching with the first two selections were analyzed. Results785 physicians applied to fill 96 positions at nineteen residency programs. 443 (56%) were males, 686 (87%) graduated from Jordanian medical schools. Half failed the entry exam and were excluded from competition. Seventy-two out of 96 (75%) matched with either of their first two requested specialties. The highest-in-demand programs were ophthalmology, otolaryngology and dermatology. Although a GPA of more than 80% increased the likelihood of matching with the top two requested specialties, an entry exam score of more than 70% was the main determining factor (AOR 8.7, 95% C.I. 2.4, 31.9). ConclusionsThe selection process for postgraduate residency programs is highly competitive. To avoid selection bias, transparent and objectively measured criteria are applied in the selection model. Clinical performance and medical knowledge reflected by the cumulative GPA and entry exam score are the most significant determinants for acceptance.

140 Recruitment “Red Flags”: A Thematic Analysis of Emergency Medicine Applicant Experience

EM-bound medical students must identify factors that will influence their selection of residency programs. They then rank programs using those criteria as well as information gained during the interview process. Love et al described the programmatic and geographical factors related to residency applicant program choice; however, we believe there are “red flags” that may cause an applicant to either lower their ranking of a program or not rank it at all. Our objective was to, therefore, describe the factors that medical students identify as “red flags,” during the EM residency recruitment process. We conducted a mixed-methods cohort study of graduates of US medical schools applying in emergency medicine (EM). We distributed our survey between the rank list certification (February 21st, 2020) and match day (March 20, 2020). As part of the survey, medical students were asked to provide a free text response to the following question, “Please describe any “red flags” that caused you to significantly lower the position of a program on your rank list or not rank it at all.” Two independent reviewers then performed a thematic analysis and discrepancies were addressed via consensus with third-party oversight. We received a total of 1,183 completed surveys that met inclusion criteria and comprised 42% of all US applicants. The median age of respondents was 27 years, 55% were male, 44% were female, and <1% were nonbinary or preferred not to answer. Our respondents were diverse with 23% of our cohort identifying as underrepresented in medicine (URiM). Applicants were 66% white, 13% Asian, 8% black, and 10% of our population identified Latino. A total of 11% of respondents identified as LGBTQIA+. Forty-one percent of applicants identified as nontraditional students. Of all respondents, 73% reported “red flags” that we grouped via thematic analysis into 6 key themes - “Resident wellbeing/program culture,” “leadership concerns,” “training environment/quality,” “program characteristics,” “interview day,” and “lack of diversity and discrimination” (Figure 1). An alarmingly high 73% of EM-bound medical students reported “red flags” during the application and recruitment process that fit within 6 key themes. While some factors such as “program characteristics,” are difficult to change, program leadership should focus on increasing wellness, maintaining a positive culture, focusing on quality, and confronting discrimination while supporting diversity.

National Survey to Assess Gender, Racial, and Ethnic Differences Among Radiology Residency Applicants Regarding Factors Impacting Program Selection

Radiology has one of the lowest female representation rates in medicine and recruiting female residents is a challenge for some residency programs. There is limited understanding of gender differences among residency applicants during program selection. The study objective is to investigate which program factors were considered most important by radiology residency applicants and to assess for differences by gender, race and ethnicity. An anonymous survey was distributed electronically to diagnostic and interventional radiology residency programs in the US and Canada via the Association of Program Coordinators in Radiology (APCR). Residents were asked to evaluate the importance of 30 factors during evaluation of residency programs using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not important, 5 = extremely important). 370 residents and 1 fellow completed the survey. Of the respondents, 269 were male (72.5%) and 101 were female (27.2%). The most important factors to respondents during program selection were program culture (4.42), geographic location (4.17), fellowship placement (4.14), and imaging and/or procedure volume (3.98). There was a significant difference between male and female respondents in the importance of program culture (p = 0.002), composition of current residents (p = 0.007), percentage of current female residents (p < 0.0001), program size (p = 0.047), call schedule (p = 0.025), percentage of female faculty (p < 0.0001), faculty ethnic and racial diversity (p < 0.0001), resident ethnic and racial diversity (p < 0.0001), which female respondents ranked more highly. Applicants consider many factors during residency program selection. Program culture, geographic location, fellowship placement and imaging and/or procedural volume were most important. There were significant differences by gender, race and ethnicity in importance of several factors.

A transparent and defensible process for applicant selection within a Canadian emergency medicine residency program

The Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) selection process has come under scrutiny due to the increasing number of unmatched medical graduates. In response, we outline our residency program's selection process including how we have incorporated best practices and novel techniques. We selected file reviewers and interviewers to mitigate gender bias and increase diversity. Four residents and two attending physicians rated each file using a standardized, cloud-based file review template to allow simultaneous rating. We interviewed applicants using four standardized stations with two or three interviewers per station. We used heat maps to review rating discrepancies and eliminated rating variance using Z-scores. The number of person-hours that we required to conduct our selection process was quantified and the process outcomes were described statistically and graphically. We received between 75 and 90 CaRMS applications during each application cycle between 2017 and 2019. Our overall process required 320 person-hours annually, excluding attendance at the social events and administrative assistant duties. Our preliminary interview and rank lists were developed using weighted Z-scores and modified through an organized discussion informed by heat mapped data. The difference between the Z-scores of applicants surrounding the interview invitation threshold was 0.18-0.3 standard deviations. Interview performance significantly impacted the final rank list. We describe a rigorous resident selection process for our emergency medicine training program which incorporated simultaneous cloud-based rating, Z-scores, and heat maps. This standardized approach could inform other programs looking to adopt a rigorous selection process while providing applicants guidance and reassurance of a fair assessment.