Examining the Factors Influencing Applicants’ Placement on One General Surgery Program’s Rank Order List

Purpose Surgery residency applications include variables that determine an individual’s rank on a program’s match list. We performed this study to determine which residency application variables are the most impactful in creating our program’s rank order list. Methods We completed a retrospective examination of all interviewed applicants for the 2019 match. We recorded United States Medical Licensing Examinations (USMLE) step I and II scores, class quartile rank from the Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE), Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership, geographic region, surgery clerkship grade, and grades on other clerkships. The MSPE and letters of recommendation were reviewed by two of the authors and assigned a score of 1 to 3, where 1 was weak and 3 was strong. The same two authors reviewed the assessments from each applicant’s interview and assigned a score from 1-5, where 1 was poor and 5 was excellent. Univariate analysis was performed, and the significant variables were used to construct an adjusted multivariate model with significance measured at P < .05. Results Univariate analysis for all 92 interviewed applicants demonstrated that USMLE step 2 scores ( P = .002), class quartile rank ( P = .004), AOA status ( P = .014), geographic location ( P < .001), letters of recommendation ( P < .001), and interview rating ( P < .001) were significant in predicting an applicant’s position on the rank list. On multivariate analysis only USMLE step 2 ( P = .018) and interview ( P < .001) remained significant. Conclusion USMLE step 2 and an excellent interview were the most important factors in constructing our rank order list. Applicants with a demonstrated strong clinical fund of knowledge that develop a rapport with our faculty and residents receive the highest level of consideration for our program.

Student well-being during dedicated preparation for USMLE Step 1 and COMLEX Level 1 exams

Background Nearly all U.S. medical students engage in a 4–8 week period of intense preparation for their first-level licensure exams, termed a “dedicated preparation period” (DPP). It is widely assumed that student well-being is harmed during DPPs, but evidence is limited. This study characterized students’ physical, intellectual, emotional, and social well-being during DPPs. Methods This was a cross-sectional survey sent electronically to all second-year students at four U.S. medical schools after each school’s respective DPP for USMLE Step 1 or COMLEX Level 1 in 2019. Survey items assessed DPP characteristics, cost of resources, and perceived financial strain as predictors for 18 outcomes measured by items with Likert-type response options. Open-ended responses on DPPs’ influence underwent thematic analysis. Results A total of 314/750 (42%) students completed surveys. DPPs lasted a median of 7 weeks (IQR 6–8 weeks), and students spent 70 h/week (IQR 56–80 h/week) studying. A total of 62 (20%) reported experiencing a significant life event that impacted their ability to study during their DPPs. Most reported 2 outcomes improved: medical knowledge base (95%) and confidence in ability to care for patients (56%). Most reported 9 outcomes worsened, including overall quality of life (72%), feeling burned out (77%), and personal anxiety (81%). A total of 25% reported paying for preparation materials strained their finances. Greater perceived financial strain was associated with worsening 11 outcomes, with reported amount spent associated with worsening 2 outcomes. Themes from student descriptions of how DPPs for first-level exams influenced them included (1) opportunity for synthesis of medical knowledge, (2) exercise of endurance and self-discipline required for professional practice, (3) dissonance among exam preparation resource content, formal curriculum, and professional values, (4) isolation, deprivation, and anguish from competing for the highest possible score, and (5) effects on well-being after DPPs. Conclusions DPPs are currently experienced by many students as a period of personal and social deprivation, which may be worsened by perceived financial stress more than the amount of money they spend on preparation materials. DPPs should be considered as a target for reform as medical educators attempt to prevent student suffering and enhance their well-being.

Prospective Factors that Predict American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination Performance: A Systematic Review

Introduction American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (ABSITE) performance has become an important factor when monitoring resident progress. Understanding which prospective factors predict performance can help identify residents at risk. Methods A literature search was conducted searching PubMed, EMBASE, and JAMA Network from June 2011 to June 2021, in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Searches were performed for the terms “ABSITE” and “American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination.” Prospective factors such as prior examination performance, clinical evaluations, and demographics were evaluated. Results A final 35 studies were included. The prospective factor most consistently found to predict ABSITE performance is performance on prior knowledge-based examinations such as the USMLE step exams. The ACGME Medical Knowledge 1 milestone evaluation also appears to correlate to ABSITE performance, although clinical evaluations, in general, do not. Demographics have no significant correlation to ABSITE performance. Discussion Using performance on prior knowledge-based examinations programs may be able to identify residents at risk for failing ABSITE. It may be possible to initiate early intervention before rather than only remediation after poor performance.

Correction to: A comparison of orthopaedic surgery and internal medicine perceptions of USMLE Step 1 pass/fail scoring

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Comprehensive Reform and Greater Equity in Applying to Residency—Trainees' Mixed Responses to a Pass/Fail USMLE Step 1

ABSTRACT Background Pass/fail USMLE Step 1 score reporting may have varying implications for trainees of different demographic and training backgrounds. Objective To characterize the perspectives of a diverse cohort of trainees on the impact of pass/fail Step 1 score reporting. Methods In 2020, 197 US and international medical school deans and 822 designated institutional officials were invited to distribute anonymous electronic surveys among their trainees. Separate surveys for medical students and residents/fellows were developed based on the authors' prior work surveying program directors on this topic. Underrepresented in medicine (UiM) was defined in accordance with AAMC definitions. Descriptive and comparative analyses were performed, and results were considered statistically significant with P &lt; .05. Results A total of 11 633 trainees responded (4379 medical students and 7254 residents/fellows; 3.3% of an estimated 285 000 US trainees). More students favored the score reporting change than residents/fellows (43% vs 31%; P &lt; .001; 95% CI 0–24). Trainees identifying as UiM were more likely to favor the change (50% vs 34%; P &lt; .001; 95% CI 0–32) and to agree it would decrease socioeconomic disparities (44% vs 25%; P &lt; .001; 95% CI 0–38) relative to non-UiM trainees. Nearly twice as many osteopathic and international medical graduate students felt they would be disadvantaged compared to MD students because of pass/fail score reporting (61% vs 31%; P &lt; .001; 95% CI 0–60). Conclusions Trainee perspectives regarding USMLE Step 1 score reporting are mixed. UiM trainees were more likely to favor the score reporting change, while osteopathic and international medical students were less in favor of the change.