Analysis of Resident and Faculty Assessment Methods Used by United States Radiation Oncology Residency Programs

2021 ◽  
Vol 111 (1) ◽  
pp. e6-e7
Author(s):  
Greeshma Rajeev-Kumar ◽  
Rajashri Manjunath ◽  
Rahul Tendulkar ◽  
Kimberly Corbin ◽  
Reshma Jagsi ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Toms Vengaloor Thomas ◽  
Teessa Perekattu Kuruvilla ◽  
Jenna Kahn ◽  
Eldrin Bhanat ◽  
Amy Q. Parr ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Toms Vengaloor Thomas ◽  
Teessa Perekattu Kuruvilla ◽  
Eldrin Bhanat ◽  
Amy Q. Parr ◽  
Ashley Albert ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 105 (1) ◽  
pp. S64-S65 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.V. Vengaloor Thomas ◽  
T. Perekattu Kuruvilla ◽  
E. Bhanat ◽  
A.A. Albert ◽  
A. Abraham ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana S. Curran ◽  
Pamela B. Andreatta ◽  
Xiao Xu ◽  
Clark E. Nugent ◽  
Samantha R. Dewald ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction Residency programs seek to match the best candidates with their positions. To avoid ethical conflicts in this process, the National Residency Matching Program (NRMP or Match) has rules regarding appropriate conduct, including guidelines on contact between candidates and programs. Our study examined communication between obstetrics and gynecology (Ob-Gyn) programs and residency candidates after interviewing and prior to ranking. Methods Ob-Gyn program directors in the United States were sent a self-administered survey via e-mail. Data were collected and analyzed using descriptive methods to examine communication practices of these programs. Results The response rate was 40%. The findings showed that respondents had variable interpretations of the NRMP rules and suggest that programs may be communicating their match intentions especially to favored candidates. Respondents' open text comments highlighted program directors' frustrations with current NRMP rules. Discussion NRMP communication rules are intended to minimize pressure on residency candidates. Our findings suggest they may be leading to unforeseen stresses on program directors and candidates. Conclusions As educational leaders in medicine, we must consider what professional communications are acceptable without increasing the pressure on candidates during the ranking and match process.


2021 ◽  
Vol 109 (2) ◽  
pp. 344-351
Author(s):  
Joshua N. Herb ◽  
Rachael T. Wolff ◽  
Philip M. McDaniel ◽  
G. Mark Holmes ◽  
Trevor J. Royce ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 121 (2) ◽  
pp. 149-156
Author(s):  
Ryan Philip Jajosky ◽  
Hannah C. Coulson ◽  
Abric J. Rosengrant ◽  
Audrey N. Jajosky ◽  
Philip G. Jajosky

Abstract Context In the past decade, two changes have affected the pathology residency match. First, the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) Match, which did not offer pathology residency, became accredited under a single graduate medical education (GME) system with the Main Residency Match (MRM), which offers pathology residency. Second, substantially fewer United States senior-year allopathic medical students (US MD seniors) matched into pathology residency. Objective To determine whether there were major changes in the number and percentage of osteopathic students and physicians (DOs) matching into pathology residency programs over the past decade. Methods Pathology match outcomes for DOs from 2011 to 2020 were obtained by reviewing AOA Match data from the National Matching Services and MRM data from the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP). The number of DOs that filled pathology positions in the MRM was divided by the total number of pathology positions filled in the MRM to calculate the percentage of pathology positions taken by DOs. Results Over the past decade, there was a 109% increase in the total number of DOs matching into pathology residency (34 in 2011 vs. 71 in 2020). During this time, there was a 23.3% increase in the total number of pathology positions filled in the MRM (476 in 2011 vs. 587 in 2020). Thus, the percentage of pathology residency positions filled by DOs increased from 7.1% in 2011 to 12.1% in 2020. The substantial increase of DOs in pathology occurred simultaneously with a 94.2% increase in the total number of DOs filling AOA/MRM “postgraduate year 1” (PGY-1) positions (3201 in 2011 vs. 6215 in 2020). Thus, the percentage of DOs choosing pathology residency has remained steady (1.06% in 2011 and 1.14% in 2020). In 2020, pathology had the third lowest percentage of filled PGY-1 residency positions taken by DOs, out of 15 major medical specialties. Conclusion The proportion of DOs choosing pathology residency was stable from 2011 to 2020 despite the move to a single GME accreditation system and the stark decline in US MD seniors choosing pathology. In 2020, a slightly higher percentage of DOs (1.14%) chose pathology residency than US MD seniors (1.13%). Overall, DOs more often choose other medical specialties, including primary care. Additional studies are needed to determine why fewer US MD seniors, but not fewer DOs, are choosing pathology residency.


2016 ◽  
Vol 96 (2) ◽  
pp. E394-E395
Author(s):  
H.Y. Pan ◽  
B.G. Haffty ◽  
B. Falit ◽  
T.A. Buchholz ◽  
L.D. Wilson ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document