scholarly journals Post-interview Thank-you Communications Influence Both Applicant and Residency Program Rank Lists in Emergency Medicine

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corlin Jewell ◽  
Tillman David ◽  
Aaron Kraut ◽  
Jamie Hess ◽  
Mary Westergaard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Medicine ◽  
Residency Program ◽  
Program Directors ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Rank List

Introduction: The National Residency Matching Program (NRMP) allows post-interview contact between residency applicants and residency programs. Thank-you communications represent one of the most common forms, but data on their value to applicants and program directors (PD) are limited. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of thank-you communications on applicant- and residency-program rank lists. Methods: Two anonymous, voluntary surveys were sent after the 2018 NRMP Match, one to applicants who were offered an interview at a single academic site in the 2017-2018 Match cycle, and one to EM PDs nationwide. The surveys were designed in conjunction with a nationally-recognized survey center and piloted and revised based on feedback from residents and faculty. Results: Of 196 residency applicants, 97 (49.5%) responded to the survey. Of these, 73/95 (76.8%) reported sending thank-you communications. Twenty-two of 73 (30%) stated that they sent thank-you communications to improve their spot on a program’s rank list; and 16 of 73 (21.9%) reported that they changed their rank list based upon the responses they received to their thank-you communications. Of 163 PDs, 99 (60.7%) responded to the survey. Of those PDs surveyed, 22.6% reported that an applicant could be moved up their program’s rank list and 10.8% reported that an applicant could move down a program’s rank list based on their thank-you communications (or lack thereof). Conclusion: The majority of applicants to EM are sending thank-you communications. A significant minority of applicants and PDs changed their rank list due to post-interview thank-you communications.

scholarly journals Teaching Ethics and Professionalism: A National Survey of Ophthalmology Residency Program Directors

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (01) ◽  
pp. e88-e94
Author(s):  
Alyssa M. Kretz ◽  
Jennifer E. deSante-Bertkau ◽  
Michael V. Boland ◽  
Xinxing Guo ◽  
Megan E. Collins
Keyword(s):  
Residency Program ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Optimal Strategies ◽  
Program Directors ◽  
Global Evaluation ◽  
Teaching Ethics ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Unprofessional Behavior ◽  
Residency Program Directors ◽  
Trainee Competence

Abstract Background While ethics and professionalism are important components of graduate medical education, there is limited data about how ethics and professionalism curricula are taught or assessed in ophthalmology residency programs. Objective This study aimed to determine how U.S. ophthalmology residency programs teach and assess ethics and professionalism and explore trainee preparedness in these areas. Methods Directors from accredited U.S. ophthalmology residency programs completed an online survey about components of programs' ethics and professionalism teaching curricula, strategies for assessing competence, and trainee preparedness in these areas. Results Directors from 55 of 116 programs (46%) responded. The most common ethics and professionalism topics taught were informed consent (38/49, 78%) and risk management and litigation (38/49, 78%), respectively; most programs assessed trainee competence via 360-degree global evaluation (36/48, 75%). While most (46/48, 95%) respondents reported that their trainees were well or very well prepared at the time of graduation, 15 of 48 (31%) had prohibited a trainee from graduating or required remediation prior to graduation due to unethical or unprofessional conduct. Nearly every program (37/48, 98%) thought that it was very important to dedicate curricular time to teaching ethics and professionalism. Overall, 16 of 48 respondents (33%) felt that the time spent teaching these topics was too little. Conclusion Ophthalmology residency program directors recognized the importance of an ethics and professionalism curriculum. However, there was marked variation in teaching and assessment methods. Additional work is necessary to identify optimal strategies for teaching and assessing competence in these areas. In addition, a substantial number of trainees were prohibited from graduating or required remediation due to ethics and professionalism issues, suggesting an impact of unethical and unprofessional behavior on resident attrition.

Survey of health-system pharmacy administration and leadership residencies

2020 ◽  
Vol 77 (6) ◽  
pp. 449-456
Author(s):  
Oscar Santalo ◽  
Joelle Farano ◽  
Jacqualine Igwe ◽  
Niaz Deyhim
Keyword(s):  
Health System ◽  
Human Resource ◽  
Residency Program ◽  
Program Directors ◽  
Professional Organization ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Pharmacy Administration ◽  
Alumni Engagement ◽  
Survey Instruments ◽  
Residency Program Directors

Abstract Purpose To perform an inquiry with response measurement from health-system pharmacy administration and leadership (HSPAL) residency program directors and residents to distinguish variances between the programs and identify enhancement opportunities for key stakeholders. Methods Members from the Pharmacy Administration Resident Collaboration Research Committee developed separate 20-question survey instruments to assess the strengths and areas of opportunity for HSPAL residency programs from the perspective of residency program directors and residents. The survey instruments were designed to evaluate the level of pharmacy service integration across HSPAL programs nationwide. Results Nearly half of the residency program directors within the listserv (40.74%, 33/81) participated in the survey. The recognized areas of opportunity by residency program directors include community pharmacy leadership, professional organization involvement, sterile compounding, and supply chain management. About a third (32.54%, 41/126) of the residents participated in the survey. Residents reported the least exposure to community pharmacy leadership, human resource management, informatics, professional organizations, and ambulatory care/specialty rotations. The overall recommendations for HSPAL residency programs are to incorporate C-suite–level experiences, improve alumni engagement, develop longitudinal human resource/financial experiences, and encourage resident credential obtainment. Conclusion In order to foster professional and leadership growth for HSPAL residents, residency programs should consider incorporating C-suite–level experiences, longitudinal human resource/finance experiences, alumni engagement opportunities, rotation variety, professional organization involvement, and support in credential obtainment.

Survey of residency program directors’ perceptions of nontraditional pharmacy residency applicants

2019 ◽  
Vol 76 (21) ◽  
pp. 1788-1793
Author(s):  
Amanda J Khalil ◽  
Krutika N Mediwala ◽  
Meera Mehta ◽  
Amy J Yanicak ◽  
Jared S Ham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Residency Program ◽  
Work Experience ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Pharmacy Practice ◽  
Program Directors ◽  
Qualitative Assessment ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Residency Program Directors

Abstract Purpose The attitudes and expectations of residency program directors (RPDs) regarding nontraditional residency applicants (NTAs) were evaluated. Methods This was a cross-sectional, survey-based study targeting RPDs of American Society of Health-System Pharmacists–accredited residency programs. A 14-question survey requesting information related to demographics, perceptions of NTAs compared with traditional applicants, advantages and disadvantages of NTAs, and advice for NTAs was administered electronically to RPDs. The primary outcome of this study was to determine RPDs’ perceptions of NTAs as suitable residency candidates. The secondary outcome evaluated the rate of NTA acceptance into residency programs and a qualitative assessment of RPDs’ advice for NTAs. Results Of the 1,414 RPDs contacted to participate, 328 (23%) completed the survey. RPDs were primarily affiliated with postgraduate year 1 pharmacy practice (52%) or postgraduate year 2 specialty residencies (30%), and 35% reported having an NTA in their program. Most respondents (87%) reported that NTAs are given equal consideration relative to traditional residency applicants. RPDs rated work experience as the most important quality of an NTA, followed closely by the ability to work with others and teachability. Most (277 [85%]) RPDs agreed that NTAs should possess experiences beyond work experience, such as research, leadership, and community service. The biggest concern regarding NTAs was significant time since graduation prior to application. Conclusion The majority of RPDs did not perceive NTAs differently from traditional applicants in the selection process of prospective candidates.

Reporting of Research by Matched Otolaryngology Residency Applicants

2020 ◽  
pp. 000348942093882
Author(s):  
Aatin K. Dhanda ◽  
Brittany Ward ◽  
Christopher J. Warren ◽  
Ben Birkenfeld ◽  
Kirolos Georges ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Students ◽  
Residency Program ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Program Directors ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Competitive Process ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Number Of Publications

Objectives: Matching to an otolaryngology residency program is a competitive process for medical students, and research performed by students is considered as a factor for granting interviews by program directors. Because abstracts, presentations and publications are all reported in combination by the National Resident Matching Program’s “Charting Outcomes in the Match” (ChOM) and may be weighted differently by PDs, we specifically investigated the number of publications by past applicants accepted to top otolaryngology residency programs. Methods: The top 25 otolaryngology residency programs were identified using Doximity, sorting by reputation. Current residents were determined from the programs’ websites. Using PubMed, each resident’s number of publications, authorship status, and journal type were recorded. Results: A total of 24 programs were included in the final analysis and the average number of manuscripts was 2.76 ± 4.01. The mean number of publications in otolaryngology journals was 1.03 ± 1.91. Conclusions: The difference between the investigated average number of publications (2.76) and those published by ChOM (10.4) represent a discrepancy due to the lack of delineation between abstracts, presentations and publications. The reported numbers for research may lead medical students to pursue alternate measures to increase their own research. Some options, such as adding a research year are not universally accessible. A clearer and more detailed approach to reporting research statistics would be beneficial to both applicants and PDs for otolaryngology programs.

scholarly journals A National Evaluation of the Scholarly Activity Requirement in Residency Programs: A Survey of Emergency Medicine Program Directors

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (11) ◽  
pp. 1337-1344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian C. Geyer ◽  
Amy H. Kaji ◽  
Eric D. Katz ◽  
Alan E. Jones ◽  
Vikhyat S. Bebarta
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Medicine ◽  
Program Directors ◽  
Scholarly Activity ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Activity Requirement

scholarly journals Resident physician exposure to novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV-2) within New York City during exponential phase of COVID-19 pandemic: Report of the New York City Residency Program Directors COVID-19 Research Group

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark P. Breazzano ◽  
Junchao Shen ◽  
Aliaa H. Abdelhakim ◽  
Lora R. Dagi Glass ◽  
Jason D. Horowitz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
New York City ◽  
Residency Program ◽  
York City ◽  
Program Directors ◽  
Infection Risk ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Resident Physicians ◽  
Novel Coronavirus ◽  
Residency Program Directors

ABSTRACTBackgroundFrom March 2-April 12, 2020, New York City (NYC) experienced exponential growth of the COVID-19 pandemic due to novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Little is known regarding how physicians have been affected. We aimed to characterize COVID-19 impact on NYC resident physicians.MethodsIRB-exempt and expedited cross-sectional analysis through survey to NYC residency program directors (PDs) April 3–12, 2020, encompassing events from March 2–April 12, 2020.FindingsFrom an estimated 340 residency programs around NYC, recruitment yielded 91 responses, representing 24 specialties and 2,306 residents. 45.1% of programs reported at least one resident with confirmed COVID-19: 101 resident physicians were confirmed COVID-19-positive, with additional 163 residents presumed positive for COVID-19 based on symptoms but awaiting or unable to obtain testing. 56.5% of programs had a resident waiting for, or unable to obtain, COVID-19 testing. Two COVID-19-positive residents were hospitalized, with one in intensive care. Among specialties with >100 residents represented, negative binomial regression indicated that infection risk differed by specialty (p=0.039). Although most programs (80%) reported quarantining a resident, with 16.8% of residents experiencing quarantine, 14.9% of COVID-19-positive residents were not quarantined. 90 programs, encompassing 99.2% of the resident physicians, reported reuse or extended mask use, and 43 programs, encompassing 60.4% of residents, felt that personal protective equipment (PPE) was suboptimal. 65 programs (74.7%) have redeployed residents elsewhere to support COVID-19 efforts.InterpretationMany resident physicians around NYC have been affected by COVID-19 through direct infection, quarantine, or redeployment. Lack of access to testing and concern regarding suboptimal PPE are common among residency programs. Infection risk may differ by specialty.FundingAHA, MPB, RWSC, CGM, LRDG, JDH are supported by NEI Core Grant P30EY019007 and an unrestricted grant from RPB. ACP and JS are supported by the Parker Family Chair. SXX is supported by the University of Pennsylvania.

scholarly journals Education in Professionalism: Results from a Survey of Pediatric Residency Program Directors

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer C. Kesselheim ◽  
Theodore C. Sectish ◽  
Steven Joffe
Keyword(s):  
Residency Program ◽  
Educational Experiences ◽  
Core Competency ◽  
Program Directors ◽  
Residency Programs ◽  
Pediatric Residency ◽  
Written Curriculum ◽  
Residency Program Directors ◽  
Assessment Strategies ◽  
Published Research

Abstract Background The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires pediatric residency programs to teach professionalism but does not provide concrete guidance for fulfilling these requirements. Individual programs, therefore, adopt their own methods for teaching and evaluating professionalism, and published research demonstrating how to satisfy the ACGME professionalism requirement is lacking. Methods We surveyed pediatric residency program directors in 2008 to explore the establishment of expectations for professional conduct, the educational experiences used to foster learning in professionalism, and the evaluation of professionalism. Results Surveys were completed by 96 of 189 program directors (51%). A majority reported that new interns attend a session during which expectations for professionalism are conveyed, either verbally (93%) or in writing (65%). However, most program directors reported that “None or Few” of their residents engaged in multiple educational experiences that could foster learning in professionalism. Despite the identification of professionalism as a core competency, a minority (28%) of programs had a written curriculum in ethics or professionalism. When evaluating professionalism, the most frequently used assessment strategies were rated as “very useful” by only a modest proportion (26%–54%) of respondents. Conclusions Few programs have written curricula in professionalism, and opportunities for experiential learning in professionalism may be limited. In addition, program directors express only moderate satisfaction with current strategies for evaluating professionalism that were available through 2008.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document