Standardized Letter Of Evaluation Research Articles

Differences in Standardized Letter of Evaluation (SLOE) 2.0 Scoring Between Men and Women as well as Under-represented in Medicine and Non-underrepresented in Medicine Applicants

Differences in Standardized Letter of Evaluation (SLOE) 2.0 Scoring Between Men and Women as well as Under-represented in Medicine and Non-underrepresented in Medicine Applicants

Home vs Away Rotation Differences in the Standardized Letters of Evaluation (SLOE) 2.0

Home vs Away Rotation Differences in the Standardized Letters of Evaluation (SLOE) 2.0

Measuring and Predicting Faculty Consensus Rankings of Standardized Letters of Evaluation.

Background Standardized letters of evaluation (SLOE) are becoming more widely incorporated into the residency application process to make the letter of recommendation, an already critical component in a residency application packet, more objective. However, it is not currently known if the reviewers of these letters share consensus regarding the strength of an applicant determined by their SLOE. Objective We measured the level of faculty agreement regarding applicant competitiveness as determined by SLOEs and the ability of 2 algorithms to predict faculty consensus rankings. Methods Using data from the 2021-2022 Match cycle from the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine SLOE Database as a blueprint, authors created 50 fictional SLOEs representative of the national data. Seven faculty then rated these SLOEs in order of applicant competitiveness, defined as suggested rank position. Consensus was evaluated using cutoffs established a priori, and 2 prediction models, a point-based system and a linear regression model, were tested to determine their ability to predict consensus rankings. Results There was strong faculty consensus regarding the interpretation of SLOEs. Within narrow windows of agreement, faculty demonstrated similar ranking patterns with 83% and 93% agreement for "close" and "loose" agreement, respectively. Predictive models yielded a strong correlation with the consensus ranking (point-based system r=0.97, linear regression r=0.97). Conclusions Faculty displayed strong consensus regarding the competitiveness of applicants via SLOEs, adding further support to the use of SLOEs for selection and advising. Two models predicted consensus competitiveness rankings with a high degree of accuracy.

Language Patterns in Letters of Recommendation for Residency Applicants in Otolaryngology.

Assess for gender and race patterns in agentic and communal language used in letters of recommendation for Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (OHNS) residency applicants. Retrospective content analysis. Applications from OHNS applications at a single training institution for the 2019 and 2020 match cycles. A total of 2283 letters of recommendation for 611 OHNS applicants were analyzed. Applicant and letter writer gender, applicant race and ethnicity, and applicant characteristics including United States Medical Licensing Examination® Step 1 score, research productivity, and medical school rank were extracted. Agentic and communal word use from the letters of recommendation was compared across applicant and writer characteristics using multilevel negative binomial regression modeling. Letter writers use a greater rate of agentic terms when describing applicants who self-identify as Asian (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.16, p < .01) or "Other/not reported" (IRR = 1.23, p < .01) as compared to white applicants. Further, standardized letters of evaluation had significantly more communal language and less agentic language. Although there was an increase in communal language in letters for female applicants compared to male applicants, these gender differences disappeared in the multivariate model. Multivariate analysis demonstrated no significant gender-based patterns in the communal or agentic language in letters of recommendation for OHNS residency applicants. However, letters for applicants identifying as Asian or "other/not reported" had more frequent use of agentic terms. Future studies should investigate other components of residency applications to assess how gender and race bias might unfairly influence an applicant's chances at a given program.

Perception of Quiet Students in Emergency Medicine: An Exploration of Narratives in the Standardized Letter of Evaluation.

The Standardized Letter of Evaluation (SLOE) is designed to assist emergency medicine (EM) residency programs in differentiating applicants and in selecting those to interview. The SLOE narrative component summarizes the student's clinical skills as well as their non-cognitive attributes. The purpose of this qualitative investigation was to explore how students described in the SLOE as quiet are perceived by faculty and to better understand how this may impact their residency candidacy. This retrospective cohort study included all SLOEs submitted to one EM residency program during one application cycle. We analyzed sentences in the SLOE narrative describing students as "quiet," "shy," and/or "reserved." Using grounded theory, thematic content analysis with a constructivist approach, we identified five mutually exclusive themes that best characterized the usage of these target words. We identified five themes: 1) quiet traits portrayed as implied-negative attributes (62.4%); 2) quiet students portrayed as overshadowed by more extraverted peers (10.3%); 3) quiet students portrayed as unfit for fast-paced clinical settings (3.4%); 4) "quiet" portrayed as a positive attribute (10.3%); and 5) "quiet" comments deemed difficult to assess due to lack of context (15.6%). We found that quiet personality traits were often portrayed as negative attributes. Further, comments often lacked clinical context, leaving them vulnerable to misunderstanding or bias. More research is needed to determine how quiet students perform compared to their non-quiet peers and to determine what changes to instructional practices may support the quiet student and help create a more inclusive learning environment.

A Call to Action for Standardizing Letters of Recommendation.

A Call to Action for Standardizing Letters of Recommendation.

Racial Bias on the Emergency Medicine Standardized Letter of Evaluation.

Studies on components of residency applications have shown evidence of racial bias. The Standardized Letter of Evaluation (SLOE) is an assessment measure for emergency medicine (EM) residency applications and, as more specialties opt to use SLOEs in place of narrative letters of recommendation, understanding bias on standardized assessments is essential. To determine whether there is a difference in rankings on the EM SLOE between underrepresented in medicine (UIM) and non-UIM applicants, White and non-White applicants, and to examine whether differences persist after controlling for other characteristics. The sample was drawn from medical students who applied to EM residency at the study institution in 2019. We compared rankings between UIM and non-UIM students and between students of each individual race/ethnicity and White students, after controlling for United States Medical Licensing Examination Step scores, Alpha Omega Alpha status, type of school (US MD, US DO, internation medical graduate), Medical Student Performance Evaluation class percentile, affiliated program vs visiting clerkship SLOE, gender and the interaction of race/ethnicity and gender, and adjusted for students submitting multiple SLOEs, using ordinal regression. There were 1555 applicants to the study institution in 2019; 1418 (91.2%) had a SLOE and self-identified race/ethnicity. After controlling for applicant characteristics, non-UIM students were significantly more likely to be ranked higher than UIM students on "Rank Against Peers," (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.03-2.07) and Grade (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.05-2.04). Analysis of EM SLOEs submitted to our institution demonstrates racial bias on this standardized assessment tool, which persists after controlling for other performance predictors.

Design and implementation of a radiation oncology standardized letter of evaluation (RO-SLOE) for the evaluation of medical students and radiation oncology residency applicants

<h3>Background</h3> Prior research has shown that clerkship grades and letters of recommendation for radiation oncology residency applicants are susceptible to grade inflation and bias, both of which diminish the utility of these criteria when evaluating prospective candidates. This is especially pertinent in light of the shift of USMLE Step 1 to Pass/Fail and recent initiatives in our field to better promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. Other fields such as emergency medicine have implemented a standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) to address these and other concerns. This project will seek to design and adopt a new radiation oncology SLOE (RO-SLOE). <h3>Methods</h3> Members of the Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group (ROECSG) Undergraduate Medical Education (UGME) working group designed a survey to assess attitudes regarding the efficacy and design of a RO-SLOE. This is conditionally approved under an educational IRB waiver and pending full IRB approval. The survey population will be members of the Association of Directors of Radiation Oncology Programs (ADROP), current residency program directors, and medical school clerkship directors. <h3>Results</h3> Our data will provide a contemporary snapshot of residency admissions practices, willingness of residency programs to consider the RO-SLOE in the admissions process and provide a framework to design novel questions for inclusion on a final RO-SLOE. We anticipate that a RO-SLOE would transparently reflect applicant's level of preparedness for residency compared to their peers, reflect institutional and evaluator grading practices, and allow for narrative feedback to qualify these objective metrics. <h3>Discussion</h3> We expect that the RO-SLOE will offer a novel, easily adaptable means to provide both actionable feedback to medical students and a standardized admissions criterion to residency programs to better discriminate between applicants. A RO-SLOE may promote greater diversity in the residency admissions process by minimizing sources of bias in clerkship evaluations and encouraging a shift to more holistic candidate review. By working with stakeholders, we hope to facilitate the RO-SLOE's incorporation into medical school clerkship evaluations and the residency application process.

An Evaluation of Non-Uniform Grade Distribution with the Emergency Medicine Off-Service Standardized Letters of Evaluation.

Introduction: Standardized Letters of Evaluation (SLOEs) are designed to objectively compare medical students to their peers for completed emergency medicine (EM) rotations to be used in the EM residency match. In an attempt to adapt quickly to the lack of availability of in-person EM rotations due to COVID restrictions, “off-service” SLOEs (OSLOEs) were allowed in place of traditional SLOEs. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of OSLOEs for candidate selection during the 2020-21 application cycle at a single EM residency.Methods: A retrospective cohort review of all OSLOEs submitted during the 2020-21 academic year to an EM residency program was performed. A total of 270 OSLOES were eligible for review. Summary statistics were calculated for the study variables recorded, including global rank, grade, categorical details, and rank.Results: Of the 270 OSLOEs reviewed, 61.9% ranked candidates in the top 10% of their class, with 95% being ranked in the top two categories. Over 90% of students were graded as honors or high pass and over 75% of students were ranked in the top 1/3 for each specific OSLOE category.Conclusion: Our findings reveal questionable utility of the objective measures in the OSLOE as there are signs it may suffer from non-uniform grade distribution, leading to low utility for candidate selection. Our data shows marked over-ranking within the highest 2 categories. EM program directors and faculty should use caution as the OSLOE may not carry the same weight as a traditional SLOE when objectively evaluating prospective students for a match into EM.

Gender differences in emergency medicine standardized letters of evaluation.

The Standardized Letter of Evaluation (SLOE) is a vital portion of any medical student's emergency medicine (EM) residency application. Prior literature suggests gender bias in EM SLOE comparative ranking, but there is limited understanding of the impact of gender on other SLOE components. The study objective was to evaluate the presence of gender differences in the 7 Qualifications for EM (7QEM), Global Assessment (GA), and anticipated Rank List (RL) position. A secondary objective was to evaluate the gender differences in 7QEM scores and their link to GA and anticipated RL position. We performed a cross-sectional study using SLOEs from a subset of United States applicants to three EM residency programs during the 2019-2020 application cycle. We collected self-reported demographics, 7QEM scores, GA, and anticipated RL position. We utilized linear regression analyses and repeated measures ANOVA to evaluate if the relationship between the 7QEM scores, GA score, and anticipated RL position was different for men and women. 2103 unique applicants were included (38.6% women, 61.4% men), with 4952 SLOEs meeting inclusion criteria. The average QEM (2.51 vs. 2.39; p<0.001), GA (2.68 vs. 2.48; p<0.001), and RL (2.68 vs. 2.47; p<0.001) scores were statistically higher for women than men. When exploring the relationship between the 7QEM and GA, Ability to communicate a caring nature to patients was not found to be a statistically significant predictor for men, but it was for women. When exploring the relationship between 7QEM and RL, Commitment to EM was not a significant predictor for men, but it was for women. Women scored higher than men on the 7QEM, GA, and anticipated RL position on SLOEs. The 7QEM scores factored differently for men and women.

Differences Between Emergency Medicine Residency Programs That Accept the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the United States and Those That Prefer or Only Accept the United States Medical Licensing Examination.

IntroductionThe Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the United States (COMLEX-USA) is a three-part series of examinations similar to the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) that osteopathic medical students must pass for medical licensure. Osteopathic students are not required to take the USMLE, but during the residency admission process, many emergency medicine (EM) residency programs will not consider osteopathic applicants who only take the COMLEX-USA. Therefore, we examined program-level characteristics between programs that accept the COMLEX-USA alone for osteopathic applicants and those that prefer the USMLE using free, publicly available online databases and residency program websites.MethodsEmergency Medicine Residents’ Association (EMRA) Match was the primary database used; however, missing exam preferences were supplemented from Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access (FREIDA) and individual program websites. Program characteristics were compared between EM residencies that accept the COMLEX-USA and those that prefer the USMLE using the Chi-square test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney test for interval variables.ResultsTwo hundred sixty of the 278 EM programs in the dataset were included in the analyses. One hundred and seven programs reported preferring the USMLE, while 151 reported accepting the COMLEX-USA alone. Programs differed by the educational environment of the primary training site (p <0.001), number of Standardized Letter(s) of Evaluation (SLOE) needed for an interview (p = 0.042), emergency department (ED) shift length (p = 0.021), former American Osteopathic Association accreditation (p <0.001), percentage of osteopathic residents (p <0.001), annual ED volume (p = 0.001), number of intern positions (p <0.001), and number of elective weeks (p = 0.028).ConclusionEM residency programs that reported accepting the COMLEX-USA alone for osteopathic applicants differed from those that prefer the USMLE. Therefore, osteopathic medical students interested in EM should consider these differences when deciding whether to take the USMLE.

Lower-Third Standardized Letters of Evaluation in Emergency Medicine: Does Gender Make a Difference in Match Outcome?

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine whether gender influences the likelihood of receiving a lower-third global assessment (GA) on the standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) submitted as part of the emergency medicine (EM) application process as well as the impact of gender on ultimate match outcomes for applicants receiving a lower-third GA ranking. Our hypothesis was that female applicants with a lower-third GA ranking have a higher risk of not matching.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study evaluating U.S.-based allopathic applicants to a single EM residency program in the Mid-Atlantic region during the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 match cycles. GA SLOE rankings and gender for all applicants were extracted and compared to the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) data for each applicant on match outcome. Comparative analyses were conducted between gender and SLOE GA rankings in order to obtain an odds ratio (OR) of gender and match outcomes.ResultsA total of 2,017 SLOEs were reviewed from 798 applicants in the 2018 and 2019 EM match cycles. Overall, 716 (90%) applicants successfully matched in EM, with 82 (10%) applicants failing to match into EM; 277 students had at least one lower-third GA ranking. For all applicants, having at least one lower-third GA ranking was associated with a significant risk of not matching (OR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.12-0.34). Of the 277 students with at least one lower-third GA ranking, 85 (31%) were female and 192 (69%) were male. Of the female applicants with a lower-third GA ranking, 15 (18%) failed to match in EM, and 39 (20%) of the males failed to match in EM. For applicants with a lower-third GA ranking, female gender alone was not associated with a significantly increased risk of not matching (OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.61-2.21).ConclusionsFemale applicants receive a lower-third GA ranking less frequently than their male counterparts. One or more lower-third rankings on the GA significantly reduced an applicant’s chances of matching into an EM program. For those with a lower-third GA ranking, female gender alone does not significantly increase the risk of not matching into EM.

Validity Evidence for the Emergency Medicine Standardized Letter of Evaluation.

The standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) is the application component that program directors value most when evaluating candidates to interview and rank for emergency medicine (EM) residency. Given its successful implementation, other specialties, including otolaryngology, dermatology, and orthopedics, have adopted similar SLOEs of their own, and more specialties are considering creating one. Unfortunately, for such a significant assessment tool, no study to date has comprehensively examined the validity evidence for the EM SLOE. We summarized the published evidence for validity for the EM SLOE using Messick's framework for validity evidence. A scoping review of the validity evidence of the EM SLOE was performed in 2020. A scoping review was chosen to identify gaps and future directions, and because the heterogeneity of the literature makes a systematic review difficult. Included articles were assigned to an aspect of Messick's framework and determined to provide evidence for or against validity. There have been 22 articles published relating to validity evidence for the EM SLOE. There is evidence for content validity; however, there is a lack of evidence for internal structure, relation to other variables, and consequences. Additionally, the literature regarding response process demonstrates evidence against validity. Overall, there is little published evidence in support of validity for the EM SLOE. Stakeholders need to consider changing the ranking system, improving standardization of clerkships, and further studying relation to other variables to improve validity. This will be important across GME as more specialties adopt a standardized letter.

Gender Differences in Language of Standardized Letter of Evaluation Narratives in Osteopathic Emergency Medicine Residency Applicants.

BackgroundThe standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) is used by emergency medicine (EM) faculty during the interview and match process. Data has shown that female allopathic applicants score higher in communal characteristics and have a greater number of ability words in the narrative portion of the SLOE as compared to their male counterparts. ObjectiveTo determine if there is a difference in the language used to describe male and female osteopathic applicants within the SLOE. MethodsAll applicants to a three-year EM residency within a single application cycle were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included allopathic applicants, applicants without a SLOE, or applicants with a SLOE only from the interviewing program. Data collected included applicant demographics and SLOE narratives. The previously validated Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC; Pennebaker Conglomerates, Inc., Austin, TX) product was used to analyze word counts from the narrative portion of each SLOE. Descriptive statistics and t-tests for continuous data were used. ResultsOf the 577 applicants to the residency program, 318 met inclusion criteria and 33% were female. Females had a higher COMLEX-2 (590 vs 559; p=0.05) as compared to males but no difference was found for the remainder of the baseline demographics. No difference was found for the number of words in the narrative portion of the SLOE between males and females (males = 122 words; females = 127 words; p=0.53). Words within the social (p=0.006), achievement (p=0.007), and standout (p<0.001) categories were more frequent in osteopathic female applicants as compared to males. No statistical differences were detected for the other 13 categories analyzed. ConclusionIn this sample of osteopathic applicants, little linguistic difference was noted for the narrative portion of the SLOE. SLOE authors did, however, use more social, achievement, and standout words to describe females as compared to male applicants.

The standardized letter of evaluation in emergency medicine: Are the qualifications useful?

The standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) in emergency medicine (EM) is a widely used metric for determining interview invitations and ranking of candidates. Previous research has questioned the validity of certain sections of the SLOE. However, there remains a paucity of literature on the qualifications for EM section, which evaluates seven attributes of applicants. The aim of this study was to determine the correlation between the qualifications questions and grades, global assessment, and anticipated rank list position for EM applicants. A multi-institutional cross-sectional study was performed using SLOEs from applicants to three geographically distinct U.S. EM residency programs during the 2019-2020 application cycle. We abstracted EM rotation grade, qualifications scores, global assessment, and anticipated rank list position from the SLOEs. A Spearman correlation was calculated between each of the qualifications scores and the applicant's grades, global assessment, and anticipated rank list position in a pairwise fashion. In total, 2,106 unique applicants (4,939 SLOEs) were included. Of the seven qualifications for EM questions, three were moderately to strongly correlated with global assessment and anticipated rank list position: "ability to develop and justify an appropriate differential and a cohesive treatment plan" (ρ=0.65 and ρ=0.63, respectively; p<0.001), "how much guidance do you predict this applicant will need during residency?" (ρ=0.68 and ρ=0.68, respectively; p<0.001), and "what is your prediction of success for the applicant?" (ρ=0.69 and ρ=0.69, respectively; p<0.001). There was no strong correlation between the seven qualifications and grades. There was a moderate to strong correlation between three of seven qualifications for EM questions (ability to develop and justify a differential and develop a cohesive plan, anticipated need for the amount of guidance, and prediction of success) with both global assessment and anticipated rank list position, suggesting that these qualifications may provide the most useful data to residency selection while some of the other factors may not be needed.

Curated collection for clinician educators: Six key papers on residency recruitment.

All emergency medicine (EM) residency programs must recruit new medical school graduates each year. The process is often overwhelming, with each program receiving far more applicants than available positions. We searched for evidence-based best practices to guide residency programs in screening, interviewing, and ranking applicants to ensure a high-performing and diverse residency class. A literature search was conducted on the topic of residency recruitment, utilizing a call on social media as well as multiple databases. After identifying relevant articles, we performed a modified Delphi process in three rounds, utilizing junior educators as well as more senior faculty. We identified 51 relevant articles on the topic of residency recruitment. The Delphi process yielded six articles that were deemed most highly relevant over the three rounds. Transparency with selection criteria, holistic application review, standardized letters of evaluation, and blinding applicant files for interviewers were among noted best practices. Well-supported evidence-based practices exist for residency recruitment, and programs may benefit from understanding which common recruitment practices offer the most value. The articles discussed here provide a foundation for faculty looking to improve their program's recruiting practices.

Medical student self-assessment as emergency medicine residency applicants.

Emergency medicine (EM) applicants are encouraged to consider their own "competitiveness" when deciding on the number of applications to submit. Program directors rank the Standardized Letter of Evaluation (SLOE) as the most important factor when reviewing an applicant. Accurate insight into how clinical performance is reflected on the SLOE could improve medical students' ability to gauge their own competitiveness. This study aims to determine the accuracy of students' self-assessment by SLOE evaluation measures when compared to the SLOE completed by faculty after their EM clerkship. Participants of this multicenter study included fourth-year medical students who had completed their EM clerkship and were applying to EM residency. Students completed a modified SLOE to reflect rankings they believed they would receive on their official SLOE. Additionally, students completed a survey assessing their knowledge of the SLOE, their perception of feedback during the clerkship, and their self-perceived competitiveness as an EM applicant. Correlation between the rankings on the student-completed SLOE and the official SLOE was analyzed using the Kendall correlation. Of the 49 eligible students, 42 (85.7%) completed the study. The correlation between scores on the student-completed and official SLOE were significantly low (r<0.68) for each item. The majority of students agreed that they were satisfied by the quantity and quality of feedback they received (31/42, 73.8%). Few students agreed that they knew how many applications to submit to ensure a match in EM (7/42, 16.7%). This study demonstrates that students did not accurately predict their rankings on the official SLOE at the end of an EM rotation and had little insight into their competitiveness as an applicant. These findings highlight opportunities to mitigate the burden on students and programs caused by the increasing number of applications per applicant. Further research is needed as to whether strategies to increase insight into competitiveness are effective.

Advising special population emergency medicine residency applicants: a survey of emergency medicine advisors and residency program leadership

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to determine the advising and emergency medicine (EM) residency selection practices for special population applicant groups for whom traditional advice may not apply.MethodsA survey was distributed on the Council of Residency Directors in EM and Clerkship Directors in EM Academy listservs. Multiple choice, Likert-type scale, and fill-in-the-blank questions addressed the average EM applicant and special population groups (osteopathic; international medical graduate (IMG); couples; at-risk; re-applicant; dual-accreditation applicant; and military). Percentages and 95% confidence intervals [CI] were calculated.ResultsOne hundred four surveys were completed. Of respondents involved in the interview process, 2 or more standardized letters of evaluation (SLOEs) were recommended for osteopathic (90.1% [95% CI 84–96]), IMG (82.5% [73–92]), dual-accreditation (46% [19–73]), and average applicants (48.5% [39–58]). Recommendations for numbers of residency applications to submit were 21–30 (50.5% [40.7–60.3]) for the average applicant, 31–40 (41.6% [31.3–51.8]) for osteopathic, and > 50 (50.9% [37.5–64.4]) for IMG. For below-average Step 1 performance, 56.0% [46.3–65.7] were more likely to interview with an average Step 2 score. 88.1% [81.8–94.4] will consider matching an EM-EM couple. The majority were more likely to interview a military applicant with similar competitiveness to a traditional applicant. Respondents felt the best option for re-applicants was to pursue the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) for a preliminary residency position.ConclusionAdvising and residency selection practices for special population applicants differ from those of traditional EM applicants. These data serve as an important foundation for advising these distinct applicant groups in ways that were previously only speculative. While respondents agree on many advising recommendations, outliers exist.

International Medical Graduate Advising Recommendations From the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine Advising Student Committee.

International Medical Graduate (IMG) physicians applying to residency training programs in a country different from where they completed medical school, bring beneficial diversity to a training program, but also face significant challenges matching into an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited residency program. Despite the growing number of IMG applications in Emergency Medicine (EM), there is a paucity of targeted recommendations for IMG applicants. As a result, the Council of Residency Directors (CORD) Advising Students Committee in EM (ASC-EM) created a dedicated IMG Advising Team to create a set of evidence-based advising recommendations based on longitudinal data from the National Residency Match Program (NRMP) and information collected from EM program directors and clerkship directors. IMG applicants should obtain at least two EM standardized letters of evaluation (SLOEs), review IMG matched percentages for programs-of-interest, analyze their objective scores with the previous matched cohorts, and rank at least 12 programs to maximize their chances of matching into EM.

Advising Medical Students During COVID-19: The Case for a Single Emergency Medicine Rotation for All.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the usual approach to exploring and applying into emergency medicine (EM) for medical students. On March 17th, 2020, the American Association of Medical Colleges issued guidance strongly suggesting that medical students be removed from direct patient care. Many medical schools removed medical students from clerkships and postponed hosting visiting medical students indefinitely. An informal query of EM clerkship directors on the Clerkship Directors in Emergency Medicine (CDEM) list-serve confirmed this trend in EM, with a clear majority of respondents pulling their students from clinical rotations and halting visiting student rotations.