scholarly journals Otolaryngology Resident Selection

2010 ◽  
Vol 143 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. P40-P40
Author(s):  
John Bent ◽  
Patrick Colley ◽  
Gerald Zahtz ◽  
Richard Smith ◽  
Marvin Fried
Keyword(s):  
1991 ◽  
Vol 26 (10) ◽  
pp. 910-912 ◽  
Author(s):  
WILBUR L. SMITH ◽  
KEVIN S. BERBAUM
Keyword(s):  

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e026424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lokke Gennissen ◽  
Anne de la Croix ◽  
Karen Stegers-Jager ◽  
Jacqueline de Graaf ◽  
Cornelia R M G Fluit ◽  
...  

ObjectivesThis study aims to shed light on interactional practices in real-life selection decision-making meetings. Adequate residency selection is crucial, yet currently, we have little understanding of how the decision-making process takes place in practice. Since having a wide range of perspectives on candidates is assumed to enhance decision-making, our analytical focus will lie on the possibilities for committee members to participate by contributing their perspective.DesignWe analysed interaction in seven recorded real-life selection group decision meetings, with explicit attention to participation.SettingSelection meetings of four different highly competitive specialties in two Dutch regions.Participants54 participants discussed 68 candidates.MethodsTo unravel interactional practices, group discussions were analysed using a hybrid data-driven, iterative analytical approach. We paid explicit attention to phenomena which have effects on participation. Word counts and an inductive qualitative analysis were used to identify existing variations in the current practices.ResultsWe found a wide variety of practices. We highlight two distinct interactional patterns, which are illustrative of a spectrum of turn-taking practices, interactional norms and conventions in the meetings. Typical for the first pattern—‘organised’—is a chairperson who is in control of the topic and turn-taking process, silences between turns and a slow topic development. The second pattern—‘organic’—can be recognised by overlapping speech, clearly voiced disagreements and negotiation about the organisation of the discussion. Both interactional patterns influence the availability of information, as they create different types of thresholds for participation.ConclusionsBy deconstructing group decision-making meetings concerning resident selection, we show how structure, interactional norms and conventions affect participation. We identified a spectrum ranging from organic to organised. Both ends have different effects on possibilities for committee members to participate. Awareness of this spectrum might help groups to optimise decision processes by enriching the range of perspectives shared.


Surgery ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 168 (4) ◽  
pp. 724-729 ◽  
Author(s):  
Al-Faraaz Kassam ◽  
Alexander R. Cortez ◽  
Leah K. Winer ◽  
Jennifer E. Baker ◽  
Dennis J. Hanseman ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farzam Gorouhi ◽  
Ali Alikhan ◽  
Arash Rezaei ◽  
Nasim Fazel

Background. Dermatology residency programs are relatively diverse in their resident selection process. The authors investigated the importance of 25 dermatology residency selection criteria focusing on differences in program directors’ (PDs’) perception based on specific program demographics.Methods. This cross-sectional nationwide observational survey utilized a 41-item questionnaire that was developed by literature search, brainstorming sessions, and online expert reviews. The data were analyzed utilizing the reliability test, two-step clustering, andK-means methods as well as other methods. The main purpose of this study was to investigate the differences in PDs’ perception regarding the importance of the selection criteria based on program demographics.Results. Ninety-five out of 114 PDs (83.3%) responded to the survey. The top five criteria for dermatology residency selection were interview, letters of recommendation, United States Medical Licensing Examination Step I scores, medical school transcripts, and clinical rotations. The following criteria were preferentially ranked based on different program characteristics: “advanced degrees,” “interest in academics,” “reputation of undergraduate and medical school,” “prior unsuccessful attempts to match,” and “number of publications.”Conclusions. Our survey provides up-to-date factual data on dermatology PDs’ perception in this regard. Dermatology residency programs may find the reported data useful in further optimizing their residency selection process.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document