The Virtual Urology Residency Match Process: Moving Beyond the Pandemic

Background: We aimed to analyze which medical school experiences contribute to success in an increasingly competitive CaRMS match. Methods: We surveyed all matched University of Saskatchewan 2019 medical graduates on characteristics of their applications: number of program applications, interviews obtained, experiences (research, volunteer, leadership), awards and money spent on the residency match process, and qualitative reflections on the process. Using published CaRMS statistics based on number of positions versus applicants, specialties were divided into high availability/low demand (HA) (e.g. family and internal medicine) and low availability/high demand (LA) (e.g. dermatology and emergency medicine). Quantitative results were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square and t-tests, and qualitative results thematically. Results: Data from 27 of 94 matched students were included. LA applicants were more likely to report at least one research project on their CV (66.67% among LA vs. 15.38% among HA, n = 27, χ2 = 8.640, p = 0.013), with a greater number of research presentations (mean=3.75 presentations vs. 2.07, t (25) = -2.251, p = 0.033). LA applicants had more elective weeks outside Saskatchewan (mean 11.75 weeks vs. 7.40 weeks, t (25) = -2.532, p = 0.018). Other application variables were not different between groups. Some students endorsed broader electives strategies, others (especially in surgical disciplines) supported narrower ones. Students reported travel, financial burden, document submission, and uncertainty as the greatest match process stressors. Conclusions: LA applicants cited more research projects and presentations, spent more elective weeks outside Saskatchewan, but were otherwise similar to HA applicants. Further studies should be done on student factors in the residency match process.

Download Full-text

Prevalence of Post-Interview Communication in the Ophthalmology Match and Its Impact on Program Directors' Ranking of Applicants

Journal of Academic Ophthalmology ◽

10.1055/s-0040-1713364 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 12 (01) ◽

pp. e74-e78

Author(s):

David Cui ◽

Nicholas L. Behunin ◽

Ingrid U. Scott ◽

Heidi Luise Wingert

Keyword(s):

Faculty Member ◽

Online Survey ◽

Program Directors ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Faculty Mentor ◽

Match Process ◽

High Prevalence ◽

Faculty Mentors ◽

Residency Match

Abstract Objective The aim of this study is to investigate the prevalence of post-interview communication (PIC) during the ophthalmology residency match process and its impact on program directors' (PD's) ranking of applicants. Design Prospective cross-sectional survey. Methods An anonymous, online survey was emailed to the PD of each ophthalmology residency program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Results Fifty-four percent (63/116) of PDs completed the survey. Eighty-five percent (54/63) of PDs received PIC from applicants or applicants' faculty mentors during the 2018 to 2019 application cycle; 62% (39/63) received PIC regarding >25% of applicants interviewed. Although 41% (26/63) of PDs reported they would likely rank an applicant higher due to PIC endorsement from a faculty mentor known to the PD, only 3% (2/63) believed that applicants who did not have a faculty mentor conduct PIC on their behalf were disadvantaged. Fourteen percent (9/63) of PDs reported they would likely rank an applicant higher due to PIC endorsement from a faculty mentor unknown to the PD, and 3% (2/63) reported they would likely rank an applicant higher as a result of PIC from the applicant. Conclusion There is a high prevalence of PIC during the ophthalmology residency match process. The potential impact of PIC on PDs' ranking of applicants varies according to whether the PIC is from a faculty member known to the PD, a faculty member unknown to the PD, or the applicant. This may disadvantage applicants without faculty mentors known to PDs.

Download Full-text