scholarly journals Surveying Obstetrics and Gynecology Residents About Their Residency Applications, Interviews, and Ranking

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-265
Author(s):  
Karen E. George ◽  
Gregory M. Gressel ◽  
Tony Ogburn ◽  
Mark B. Woodland ◽  
Erika Banks

ABSTRACT Background Residency applications have increased in the last decade, creating growing challenges for applicants and programs. Objective We evaluated factors associated with application and match into obstetrics and gynecology residency. Methods During the annual in-training examination administered to all obstetrics and gynecology residents in the United States, residents were surveyed on the residency application process. Results Ninety-five percent (5094 of 5347) residents responded to the survey. Thirty-six percent reported applying to 30 or fewer programs, 26.7% applied to more than 31 programs, and 37.1% opted not to answer this question. Forty-nine percent of residents received honors in their obstetrics and gynecology clerkship and 37.1% did not. The majority of residents (88.6%) reported scoring between 200 and 250 on USMLE Step 1. Eighty-six percent matched into one of their top 5 programs. The only factor associated with matching in residents' top 5 programs was receiving honors in their clerkship (OR 1.29; 95% CI 1.08–1.54; P < .005). The only factor associated with matching below the top 5 programs was a couples match (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.43–0.72; P < .001). In choosing where to apply, residents identified program location and reputation as the most important factors, while for ranking, location and residency culture were the most important. Conclusions Most obstetrics and gynecology residents reported matching into their top 5 choices. Receiving an honors grade in the clerkship was the only factor associated with matching in applicants' top 5 programs. Location was the most important factor for applying to and ranking of programs.

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (02) ◽  
pp. e251-e254
Author(s):  
Saif A. Hamdan ◽  
Alan T. Makhoul ◽  
Brian C. Drolet ◽  
Jennifer L. Lindsey ◽  
Janice C. Law

Abstract Background Scoring for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 was recently announced to be reported as binary as early as 2022. The general perception among program directors (PDs) in all specialties has largely been negative, but the perspective within ophthalmology remains uncharacterized. Objective This article characterizes ophthalmology residency PDs' perspectives regarding the impact of pass/fail USMLE Step 1 scoring on the residency application process. Methods A validated 19-item anonymous survey was electronically distributed to 111 PDs of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited ophthalmology training programs. Results Fifty-six PDs (50.5%) completed the survey. The median age of respondents was 48 years and the majority were male (71.4%); the average tenure as PD was 7.1 years. Only 6 (10.7%) PDs reported the change of the USMLE Step 1 to pass/fail was a good idea. Most PDs (92.9%) indicated that this will make it more difficult to objectively compare applicants, and many (69.6%) did not agree that the change would improve medical student well-being. The majority (82.1%) indicated that there will be an increased emphasis on Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores, and many (70.4%) felt that medical school reputation will be more important in application decisions. Conclusion Most ophthalmology PDs who responded to the survey do not support binary Step 1 scoring. Many raised concerns regarding shifted overemphasis on Step 2 CK, uncertain impact on student well-being, and potential to disadvantage certain groups of medical students including international medical graduates. These concerns highlight the need for reform in the ophthalmology application process.


2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 358-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanne M. Sandella ◽  
John R. Gimpel ◽  
Larissa L. Smith ◽  
John R. Boulet

ABSTRACT  The Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX-USA) and the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) are recognized by all state medical licensing boards in the United States, and the Federation of State Medical Boards has supported the validity of both examinations for medical licensure. Many osteopathic medical students take both examinations.Background  The purpose of this study was to investigate performance on COMLEX-USA Level 1 and USMLE Step 1 of students from colleges of osteopathic medicine where the majority of students took both examinations.Objective  Data were collected on the entering classes of 2010 and 2011. Relationships between the COMLEX-USA Level 1 and the USMLE Step 1 were quantified using Pearson correlations. The correlation between outcomes on the 2 examinations was evaluated using the phi coefficient. A contingency table was constructed to look at first-attempt outcomes (pass/fail).Methods  Data for 2010 and 2011 were collected from 3 osteopathic medical schools, with 795 of 914 students (87%) taking both examinations. The correlation between first-attempt COMLEX-USA Level 1 and USMLE Step 1 scores was statistically significant across and within all 3 schools. The overall correlation was r(795) = 0.84 (P < .001). Pass/fail status on the 2 examinations was moderately correlated (ϕ = 0.39, P < .01).Results  Our study found a strong association between COMLEX Level 1 and USMLE Step 1 performance. Additional studies to accurately compare scores on these examinations are warranted.Conclusions


10.2196/20182 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. e20182
Author(s):  
Benjamin Liu

In recent years, US medical students have been increasingly absent from medical school classrooms. They do so to maximize their competitiveness for a good residency program, by achieving high scores on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1. As a US medical student, I know that most of these class-skipping students are utilizing external learning resources, which are perceived to be more efficient than traditional lectures. Now that the USMLE Step 1 is adopting a pass/fail grading system, it may be tempting to expect students to return to traditional basic science lectures. Unfortunately, my experiences tell me this will not happen. Instead, US medical schools must adapt their curricula. These new curricula should focus on clinical decision making, team-based learning, and new medical decision technologies, while leveraging the validated ability of these external resources to teach the basic sciences. In doing so, faculty will not only increase student engagement but also modernize the curricula to meet new standards on effective medical learning.


2018 ◽  
Vol 129 (2) ◽  
pp. 282-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan R. Durham ◽  
Katelyn Donaldson ◽  
M. Sean Grady ◽  
Deborah L. Benzil

OBJECTIVEWith nearly half of graduating US medical students being female, it is imperative to understand why females typically make up less than 20% of the neurosurgery applicant pool, a number that has changed very slowly over the past several decades. Organized neurosurgery has strongly indicated the desire to overcome the underrepresentation of women, and it is critical to explore whether females are at a disadvantage during the residency application process, one of the first steps in a neurosurgical career. To date, there are no published studies on specific applicant characteristics, including gender, that are associated with match outcome among neurosurgery resident applicants. The purpose of this study is to determine which characteristics of neurosurgery residency applicants, including gender, are associated with a successful match outcome.METHODSDe-identified neurosurgical resident applicant data obtained from the San Francisco Fellowship and Residency Matching Service for the years 1990–2007 were analyzed. Applicant characteristics including gender, medical school attended, year of application, United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 1 score, Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) status, and match outcome were available for study.RESULTSOf the total 3426 applicants studied, 473 (13.8%) applicants were female and 2953 (86.2%) were male. Two thousand four hundred forty-eight (71.5%) applicants successfully matched. USMLE Step 1 score was the strongest predictor of match outcome with scores > 245 having an OR of 20.84 (95% CI 10.31–42.12) compared with those scoring < 215. The mean USMLE Step 1 score for applicants who successfully matched was 233.2 and was 210.8 for those applicants who did not match (p < 0.001). Medical school rank was also associated with match outcome (p < 0.001). AOA status was not significantly associated with match outcome. Female gender was associated with significantly lower odds of matching in both simple (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.48–0.72) and multivariate analyses (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34–0.94 CI). USMLE Step 1 scores were significantly lower for females compared to males with a mean score of 230.1 for males and 221.5 for females (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in medical school ranking or AOA status when stratified by applicant gender.CONCLUSIONSThe limited historical applicant data from 1990–2007 suggests that USMLE Step 1 score is the best predictor of match outcome, although applicant gender may also play a role.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khodayar Goshtasbi ◽  
Mehdi Abouzari ◽  
Tjoson Tjoa ◽  
Sonya Malekzadeh ◽  
Naveen D. Bhandarkar

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 238212052110374
Author(s):  
Sejal Tamakuwala ◽  
Joshua Dean ◽  
Katherine J. Kramer ◽  
Adib Shafi ◽  
Sarah Ottum ◽  
...  

AIM The study aims to determine resident applicant metrics most predictive of academic and clinical performance as measured by the Council of Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology (CREOG) examination scores and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) clinical performance (Milestones) in the aftermath of United States Medical Licensing Examination Scores (USMLE) Step 1 becoming a pass/fail examination. METHODS In this retrospective study, electronic and paper documents for Wayne State University Obstetrics and Gynecology residents matriculated over a 5-year period ending July 2018 were collected. USMLE scores, clerkship grade, and wording on the letters of recommendation as well as Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) were extracted from the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) and scored numerically. Semiannual Milestone evaluations and yearly CREOG scores were used as a marker of resident performance. Statistical analysis on residents (n = 75) was performed using R and SPSS and significance was set at P < .05. RESULTS Mean USMLE score correlated with CREOG performance and, of all 3 Steps, Step 1 had the tightest association. MSPE and class percentile also correlated with CREOGs. Clerkship grade and recommendation letters had no correlation with resident performance. Of all metrics provided by ERAS, none taken alone, were as useful as Step 1 scores at predicting performance in residency. Regression modeling demonstrated that the combination of Step 2 scores with MSPE wording restored the predictive ability lost by Step 1. CONCLUSIONS The change of USMLE Step 1 to pass/fail may alter resident selection strategies. Other objective markers are needed in order to evaluate an applicant’s future performance in residency.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Liu

UNSTRUCTURED In recent years, US medical students have been increasingly absent from medical school classrooms. They do so to maximize their competitiveness for a good residency program, by achieving high scores on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1. As a US medical student, I know that most of these class-skipping students are utilizing external learning resources, which are perceived to be more efficient than traditional lectures. Now that the USMLE Step 1 is adopting a pass/fail grading system, it may be tempting to expect students to return to traditional basic science lectures. Unfortunately, my experiences tell me this will not happen. Instead, US medical schools must adapt their curricula. These new curricula should focus on clinical decision making, team-based learning, and new medical decision technologies, while leveraging the validated ability of these external resources to teach the basic sciences. In doing so, faculty will not only increase student engagement but also modernize the curricula to meet new standards on effective medical learning.


NeuroSci ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 320-333
Author(s):  
Roxanna M. Garcia ◽  
Rebecca A. Reynolds ◽  
Hannah K. Weiss ◽  
Nathan A. Shlobin ◽  
Lola B. Chambless ◽  
...  

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly disrupted medical education and the residency application process. Methods: We conducted a descriptive observational study in April 2020 of medical students and foreign medical graduates considering or pursuing careers in neurosurgery in the United States to examine the impact of the pandemic. Results: A total of 379 respondents from 67 medical schools completed the survey. Across all participants, 92% (n = 347) stopped in-person didactic education, and 43% (n = 161) experienced basic science and 44% (n = 167) clinical research delays. Sixty percent (n = 227) cited a negative impact on academic productivity. Among first year students, 18% (n = 17) were less likely to pursue a career in neurosurgery. Over half of second year and third year students were likely to delay taking the United States Medical Licensing Examination Steps I and II. Among third year students, 77% (n = 91) reported indefinite postponement of sub-internships, and 43% (n = 53) were unsatisfied with communication from external programs. Many fourth-year students (50%, n = 17) were graduating early to participate in COVID-19-related patient care. Top student-requested support activities included access to student-focused educational webinars and sessions at upcoming conferences. Conclusions: Medical students pursuing careers in neurosurgery faced unique academic, career, and personal challenges secondary to the pandemic. These challenges may become opportunities for new initiatives guided by professional organizations and residency programs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document