Dataset Information

A Survey of the Complex General Surgical Oncology Fellowship Programs Regarding Applicant Selection and Rank.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:There is significant demand for training in Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO) fellowships. Previous work has explored objective quantitative metrics of applicants that matriculated to CGSO fellowships; however, ambiguity remains concerning academic benchmarks and qualitative factors that impact matriculation. STUDY DESIGN:A web-based survey was sent to each ACGME/SSO-approved CGSO fellowship training program. The survey was comprised of 24 questions in various forms, including dichotomous, ranked, and five-point Likert scale questions. RESULTS:Twenty-nine of 30 program directors (97%) submitted complete survey responses, representing 64 of the 65 CGSO fellowship positions (99%) currently offered. Programs received a mean of 73 applications per cycle (range 50-125) and granted a mean of 26 interviews (range 2-45). Seventy-two percent of programs had an established benchmark for ABSITE score percentile before offering a candidate an interview, with 62% of those programs setting that benchmark above the 50th percentile. The majority of programs also had established benchmarks for quantity of first author publications (mean: 2.3) and all publications of any authorship (mean: 4.4). An applicant's interview was ranked as the most important factor in determining inclusion on the program's rank list. The ability to work as part of a team, interpersonal interaction/communication abilities, and operative skills were rated as most important applicant characteristics, whereas an applicant's personal statement was ranked as least important. CONCLUSIONS:After established academic benchmarks have been met, a multitude of factors influences ranking of applicants to the CGSO fellowship, most of which are assessed at the interview.

SUBMITTER: Wach MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6684844 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Survey of the Complex General Surgical Oncology Fellowship Programs Regarding Applicant Selection and Rank.

Wach Michael M MM Ayabe Reed I RI Ruff Samantha M SM D'Angelica Michael M Dineen Sean P SP Grubbs Elizabeth G EG Shibata David D Shirley Lawrence L Weiss Matthew J MJ Davis Jeremy L JL Hernandez Jonathan M JM

Annals of surgical oncology 20190422 9

<h4>Background</h4>There is significant demand for training in Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO) fellowships. Previous work has explored objective quantitative metrics of applicants that matriculated to CGSO fellowships; however, ambiguity remains concerning academic benchmarks and qualitative factors that impact matriculation.<h4>Study design</h4>A web-based survey was sent to each ACGME/SSO-approved CGSO fellowship training program. The survey was comprised of 24 questions in various fo ...[more]

PMID: 31011903

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeUsing 2020 match applicants, the purpose of this study was to identify baseline applicant perspectives on the match process surveying (1) away rotations, (2) interview/postinterview communications, and (3) factors influencing applicant rank order lists.Methods and materialsApplicants in the 2020 match cycle at a large radiation oncology (RO) residency program received a questionnaire covering demographics and the match process: away rotations, interview/postinterview communications, and ranking. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with completing fewer away rotations.ResultsOf 141 surveys sent, 76 were completed, for a response rate of 54%. Most applicants were White, male, and matched into RO. One in 3 applicants did not have a home RO program. Most applicants completed 2 RO rotations (ie, a home rotation and an additional away rotation; range, 0-4 total rotations); RO rotations influenced the applicant rank order lists and the ultimate match result for 94% and 79% of applicants, respectively. Forty-seven percent of applicants reported being asked inappropriate questions during the interview (eg, parental or marital status). Applicants did not perceive a consistent message regarding postinterview communications from program directors. Most applicants were contacted postinterview. Interviews cost most applicants more than $5000. Thirty-seven percent of respondents reported submitting a letter of interest after the interview, hoping to improve their rank. When applying to programs, general reputation and location were the most common influential factors mentioned. When ranking programs, informal conversations with residents and program culture observations were the most common influential factors mentioned. Based on multivariable analysis, applicants who completed fewer RO rotations (including away rotations) had greater odds of matching to their home program (odds ratio [OR], 12.05; 95% CI, 1.27-206.69), lower odds of program location influencing where to apply (OR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.003-0.37), and lower odds of the program's general reputation affecting their rank list (OR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.001-0.47).ConclusionsThe results suggest that medical students perceive away rotations as an important influencer of their match process. Although applicants and program directors both participate in postinterview communications, interactions with residents influence rank order lists. These data may serve as an up-to-date baseline to evaluate the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the RO match process.

Project description:IntroductionThe development of postgraduate programs for physician assistants (PAs) began in 1973 and by 2020 there were approximately 72 programs spread across a broad range of medical and surgical disciplines. PA Post-graduate education programs are voluntary and available to American licensed PAs. Therefore, an assessment of the characteristics of PA post-graduate fellowships and residencies programs was initiated.MethodA non-experimental, descriptive research study was designed to obtain information on the characteristics of PA postgraduate education programs in the US. The source of information was from surveyed members of the Association of Postgraduate Physician Assistant Programs (APPAP). Questions were drawn from consensus discussions. Directors of postgraduate programs that were operational in 2020 were eligible to participate.ResultsSeventy-two postgraduate program directors were invited to the survey and 34 program directors replied. These programs are geographically distributed across the US in 13 states. The respondents represent a wide range of medicine: surgery, emergency medicine, critical care, orthopaedics, hospitalist, psychiatry, oncology, primary care, pediatrics, and cardiology. Most programs are associated with an academic medical center and some institutions have more than one postgraduate specialty track. The curriculum includes bedside teaching, lectures, mentorship, assigned reading, procedures, simulation, and conferences. An average program length is 12 months and awards a certificate. Stipends for PA fellows are $50,000-80,000 (2020 dollars) and benefits include paid time off, health and liability insurance. About half of the programs bill for the services rendered by the PA. Over 90% of graduates are employed within 2 months of completing a PA postgraduate training program.ConclusionA trend is underway in American medicine to include PAs in postgraduate education. PA postgraduate training occurs across a broad spectrum of medical and surgical areas, as well as diverse institutions and organizations overseeing these programs. Most PA postgraduate programs are in teaching hospitals where the PA resident or PA fellow also serves as a house officer alongside a categorical resident. This study sets the stage for more granular economic and social research on this growing phenomenon in American medicine.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Implementation of evidence-based peri-operative nutrition in the U.S. is poorly described and hypothesized to be suboptimal. This study broadly describes practices and attitudes regarding nutrition screening/intervention in U.S. gastrointestinal and oncologic surgeons. METHODS:Nationwide nutritional practice survey of GI/Oncologic surgical faculty. RESULTS:Program response rates were 57% and 81% for colorectal and oncology fellowships, respectively. Only 38% had formal nutritional screening processes in place. Average estimated percent of patients malnourished, receiving nutritional screening, and receiving nutritional supplementation preoperatively were 28%, 43%, and 21%, respectively. University-affiliation (p = 0.0371) and a formal screening process (p = 0.0312) predicted higher preoperative nutritional screening rates. Controversy existed regarding routine use of perioperative immunonutrition, but strong consensus emerged that lack of awareness regarding positive data for immunonutrition impedes usage. CONCLUSION:U.S. surgeons recognize importance of perioperative nutritional screening and benefits of basic nutrition therapy. However, limited formal nutrition screening programs currently exist indicating a significant need for implementation of nutrition screening and basic nutrition intervention. Further work on education, implementation and identifying clinical research needs for immunonutrition interventions is also vitally needed. SUMMARY:This study broadly describes nutritional practices and attitudes of gastrointestinal and oncologic surgeons across the U.S. Surgeons recognize both the importance of proper perioperative surgical nutritional support and the potential value to their practice in terms of outcomes, but this study confirms poor implementation of evidence-based nutrition practices in GI and oncologic surgery programs. This study describes a significant opportunity to capitalize on current favorable surgeon beliefs (and positive published data) regarding the benefit of perioperative nutrition to improve surgical nutrition practice and patient outcomes in the U.S.

Project description:BackgroundWe describe the implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs designed to minimize postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pain and reduce opioid use in patients undergoing selected procedures at an ambulatory cancer surgery center. Key components of the ERAS included preoperative patient education regarding the postoperative course, liberal preoperative hydration, standardized PONV prophylaxis, appropriate intraoperative fluid management, and multimodal analgesia at all stages.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed data on patients who underwent mastectomy with or without immediate reconstruction, minimally invasive hysterectomy, thyroidectomy, or minimally invasive prostatectomy from the opening of our institution on January 2016 to December 2018. Data collected included use of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA), rate of PONV rescue, time to first oral opioid, and total intraoperative and postoperative opioid consumption. Compliance with ERAS elements was determined for each service. Quality outcomes included time to first ambulation, postoperative length of stay (LOS), rate of reoperation, rate of transfer to acute care hospital, 30-day readmission, and urgent care visits ≤30 days.ResultsWe analyzed 6781 ambulatory surgery cases (2965 mastectomies, 1099 hysterectomies, 680 thyroidectomies, and 1976 prostatectomies). PONV rescue decreased most appreciably for mastectomy (28% decrease; 95% confidence interval [CI], -36 to -22). TIVA use increased for both mastectomies (28%; 95% CI, 20-40) and hysterectomies (58%; 95% CI, 46-76). Total intraoperative opioid administration decreased over time across all procedures. Time to first oral opioid decreased for all surgeries; decreases ranged from 0.96 hours (95% CI, 2.1-1.4) for thyroidectomies to 3.3 hours (95% CI, 4.5 to -1.7) for hysterectomies. Total postoperative opioid consumption did not change by a clinically meaningful degree for any surgery. Compliance with ERAS measures was generally high but varied among surgeries.ConclusionsThis quality improvement study demonstrates the feasibility of implementing ERAS at an ambulatory surgery center. However, the study did not include either a concurrent or preintervention control so that further studies are needed to assess whether there is an association between implementation of ERAS components and improvements in outcomes. Nevertheless, we provide benchmarking data on postoperative outcomes during the first 3 years of ERAS implementation. Our findings reflect progressive improvement achieved through continuous feedback and education of staff.

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the process of applying to orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships from the applicant's perspective, with a focus on number of program applications, interviews, interview day importance, and financial burden.MethodsAn anonymous electronic survey was distributed to all orthopaedic surgery residents who applied to orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships in the United States in 2016 and 2017. The survey contained 26 questions, with 10 pertaining to applicant demographics, accolades, and examination scores. A follow up e-mail was distributed at 2 and 4 weeks to increase participation.ResultsThe survey was distributed to 453 sports medicine fellowship applicants; 148 (34.1%) completed the survey. Of the respondents, 130 (87.8%) were male and 18 (12.2%) were female. When analyzing United States Medical Licensing Examination scores, respondents who scored above a 251 on Step 2 CK were more likely to receive more than 20 interviews compared with those who scored lower (P = .013). Previous collegiate or professional athlete status did not influence the number of interviews received. In total, 94 of 147 (64.0%) respondents applied to more than 20 programs, and 73 respondents (49.7%) attended between 11 and 15 interviews. The majority of respondents spent between $4001 and $6000 (49; 33.1%) throughout the application process. Interaction with faculty and case volume/complexity were the most important factors in ranking programs.ConclusionsThe majority of orthopaedic surgery residents pursue at least 1 year of fellowship training following residency, with sports medicine being one of the most popular specialties. The application process for sports medicine fellowships is complex, competitive, and a financial burden for applicants. Most applicants apply to more than 20 programs, spend between $4000 and $6,000 over the course of the application process, and value faculty interaction and case volume/complexity over other factors associated with a program.Clinical relevanceAs other surgical fellowships have detailed their application process from the applicant's perspective, there remains a need for increased transparency of the sports medicine fellowship application in order to offer additional insight and guidance for future applicants.

Dataset Information

A Survey of the Complex General Surgical Oncology Fellowship Programs Regarding Applicant Selection and Rank.

Publications

A Survey of the Complex General Surgical Oncology Fellowship Programs Regarding Applicant Selection and Rank.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets