Optimizing the Virtual Otolaryngology Residency Information Sessions: A Survey of Applicants.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Grauer J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8013640 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the perception and value of virtual open houses for urology applicants in the COVID-19 era, since students can no longer attend subinternships and all interviews will be conducted virtually.MethodsA Twitter survey was sent to 230 likely urology applicants connected through the UroResidency platform. It asked about the relative value of components of the virtual open house and areas for suggested improvement.ResultsSeventy responded. Most potential applicants valued virtual open houses that discussed strengths and weaknesses of the program, had time to interact directly with the faculty, and included resident led presentations or discussions. Most agreed programs needed to have more direct time with residents to better understand the culture of the program.ConclusionIn this first virtual interview season for urology, likely applicants generally engage in virtual open houses and strongly prefer time to interact directly with residents to assess the program culture.
| S-EPMC7547824 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Residency selection in the United States relied on in-person interviews for many decades. The COVID-19 pandemic and recommendations from the Coalition for Physician Accountability (COPA) required programs to implement virtual interviews for the 2020–2021 residency selection cycle. Although virtual interviews may become the norm in the future, there is scant data at the institutional level to inform how to best approach this process. Objective To describe the perceptions of applicants to several residency programs at one institution on the importance of virtual recruitment features and assess the impact on their overall ranking decisions. Methods Applicants who interviewed for 12 medical and surgical residency programs during the 2020–2021 cycle at the University of California San Francisco were invited to participate in an anonymous survey in March 2021, after all interviews were completed. A survey consisting of 26 questions was administered to applicants on features that are important during interviews and the impact on their ranking decisions scored on a 5-point Likert scale. Results Of the 1422 participating applicants, 303 (21%) completed the survey. The most important feature for applicants during the interview day was getting a feel of the program (92%). Conversations with residents (91%) and faculty (79%) were also highly rated. Respondents reported morale and happiness of residents (71%) as an extremely important factor in their overall ranking decision . Conclusion Programs should consider prioritizing features that aid in alignment with getting to know residents and faculty and provide a sense of morale over emphasis on the institutional and location features. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44186-022-00004-5.
| S-EPMC8906359 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo capture the perspectives of candidates applying for otolaryngology residency positions in the 2020-21 cycle, in the context of disruption caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.Subjects and methodsCandidates planning to apply to the otolaryngology 2020-21 match were invited to complete a cross-sectional online survey. Distribution was via otomatch.com and word of mouth. Descriptive statistics were performed.ResultsOf 85 eligible responses (estimated 18.9% of all applicants), many have had at least one board examination (71.8%) disrupted. A majority (85.9%) believe evaluation of candidates will change due to the pandemic, and 54.1% report they were now less confident in matching. Female applicants (37.6% of respondents) were found to have significantly higher odds of decreased confidence in matching (OR 2.781 [95% CI 1.045-7.4044]; P = .041). Many report a move to virtual interviews would increase the number of applications submitted (45.9%) and the number of interviews attended (77.6%). Some applicants (36.5%) did not believe residency programs would gather sufficient information about their candidacy to make an informed decision, and most (62.4%) did not believe that they would gather sufficient information to inform their own rank list.ConclusionsWe find that candidates believe their candidacy will be assessed differently in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, are largely less confident in successfully matching, and are planning to apply and interview more broadly. These data are relevant to otolaryngology residency leadership to inform clear dialogue and a smooth transition into an unprecedented application cycle.
| S-EPMC7481654 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTravel costs and application fees make in-person residency interviews expensive, compounding existing financial burdens on medical students. We hypothesized virtual interviews (VI) would be associated with decreased costs for applicants compared to in-person interviews (IPI) but at the expense of gathering information with which to assess the program.ObjectiveTo survey senior medical students and postgraduate year (PGY)-1 residents regarding their financial burden and program perception during virtual versus in-person interviews.MethodsThe authors conducted a single center, multispecialty study comparing costs of IPI vs VI from 2020-2021. Fourth-year medical students and PGY-1 residents completed one-time surveys regarding interview costs and program perception. The authors compared responses between IPI and VI groups. Potential debt accrual was calculated for 3- and 7-year residencies.ResultsTwo hundred fifty-two (of 884, 29%) surveys were completed comprising 75 of 169 (44%) IPI and 177 of 715 (25%) VI respondents. The VI group had significantly lower interview costs compared to the IPI group (median $1,000 [$469-$2,050 IQR] $784-$1,216 99% CI vs $3,200 [$1,700-$5,500 IQR] $2,404-$3,996 99% CI, P<.001). The VI group scored lower for feeling the interview process was an accurate representation of the residency program (3.3 [0.5] vs 4.1 [0.7], P<.001). Assuming interview costs were completely loan-funded, the IPI group will have accumulated potential total loan amounts $2,334 higher than the VI group at 2% interest and $2,620 at 6% interest. These differences were magnified for a 7-year residency.ConclusionsVirtual interviews save applicants thousands of dollars at the expense of their perception of the residency program.
| S-EPMC9765904 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe objective of this study was to determine the advising and emergency medicine (EM) residency selection practices for special population applicant groups for whom traditional advice may not apply.MethodsA survey was distributed on the Council of Residency Directors in EM and Clerkship Directors in EM Academy listservs. Multiple choice, Likert-type scale, and fill-in-the-blank questions addressed the average EM applicant and special population groups (osteopathic; international medical graduate (IMG); couples; at-risk; re-applicant; dual-accreditation applicant; and military). Percentages and 95% confidence intervals [CI] were calculated.ResultsOne hundred four surveys were completed. Of respondents involved in the interview process, 2 or more standardized letters of evaluation (SLOEs) were recommended for osteopathic (90.1% [95% CI 84-96]), IMG (82.5% [73-92]), dual-accreditation (46% [19-73]), and average applicants (48.5% [39-58]). Recommendations for numbers of residency applications to submit were 21-30 (50.5% [40.7-60.3]) for the average applicant, 31-40 (41.6% [31.3-51.8]) for osteopathic, and > 50 (50.9% [37.5-64.4]) for IMG. For below-average Step 1 performance, 56.0% [46.3-65.7] were more likely to interview with an average Step 2 score. 88.1% [81.8-94.4] will consider matching an EM-EM couple. The majority were more likely to interview a military applicant with similar competitiveness to a traditional applicant. Respondents felt the best option for re-applicants was to pursue the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP) for a preliminary residency position.ConclusionAdvising and residency selection practices for special population applicants differ from those of traditional EM applicants. These data serve as an important foundation for advising these distinct applicant groups in ways that were previously only speculative. While respondents agree on many advising recommendations, outliers exist.
| S-EPMC7722429 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Given mounting pressure of work hour restrictions, resource constraints, and variability of clinical exposure, Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery (OHNS) residency training has shifted away from the apprenticeship model to embrace the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada's "Competence by Design" initiative. As a result, appraising both current and potential educational adjuncts has become increasingly important. In this investigation, a national needs assessment survey was performed to identify strengths, weaknesses, and future opportunities of the current training landscape. METHODS:An online survey was distributed to all thirteen Canadian OHNS post-graduate administrators for completion by program directors and residents from February to October in 2016. Prior to distribution, the survey was vetted for face validity by a group of staff Otolaryngologists and questions were modified accordingly. Quantitative analysis was performed on SPSS (IBM Corp., Chicago) with non-parametric, two-tailed Mann-Whitney U testing performed on scaled questions. RESULTS:Of the 68 responses, 11 of 13 (84.6%) of program directors and 57 of 168 (33.9%) residents responded to the survey. All 13 programs currently utilize cadaveric laboratory dissections. Associated challenges were ranked as specimen availability, faculty participation, insufficient space, and resident time constraints. 30.8% of programs currently utilize some form of virtual reality simulator, which 90.9% of program directors felt would be a fair and effective platform for evaluation. CONCLUSION:A discrepancy exists between the favourable attitudes of both residents and program directors towards virtual reality simulation and its actual adoption. For successful adoption to occur, the existing barriers to unconventional training must be addressed and the tangible benefits for competency based training will need to be explored.
| S-EPMC6167884 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:It has been nearly 25 years since medical students were queried regarding their perspectives on otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (OHNS) residency selection. Understanding this viewpoint is critical to improving the current application process. Objective:To evaluate the perceptions of 2016 OHNS residency applicants regarding the application process and offer suggestions for reform. Design, Setting, and Participants:In this cross-sectional study of anonymous online survey data, a 14-question survey was designed based on resources obtained from a computerized PubMed, Ovid, and GoogleScholar database search of the English language from January 1, 1990, through December 31, 2015, was conducted using the following search terms: (medical student OR applicant) AND (application OR match) AND otolaryngology. The survey was administered to 2016 OHNS residency applicants to examine 4 primary areas: current attitudes toward the match, effect of the new Otolaryngology Program Directors Organization personal statement mandate, sources of advice and information, and suggestions for improvement. In January 2016, an email was sent to 100 program directors asking them to distribute the survey to current OHNS applicants at their institution. One follow-up reminder email was sent in February 2016. A link to the survey was posted on the Otomatch.com homepage on January 28, 2016, with the last response received on March 28, 2016. Main Outcome and Measures:Survey responses regarding the residency application process. Results:A total of 150 of 370 residency applicants (40.5%) responded to the survey. Of these, 125 respondents (90.6%) noted applying to programs in which they had no specific interest simply to improve their chances of matching. Applicants intended to apply to more programs than they actually did (63.6 vs 60.8; r?=?0.19; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.40). Program directors advised fewer applications than other sources; however, 58 respondents (38.7%) did not receive advice from a program director. A total of 121 respondents (80.7%) found online program information to be insufficient. Finally, 90 of 140 respondents (64.3%) noted that they would agree to a hard cap on applications, among other suggestions for improvement. Conclusions and Relevance:Several main themes emerged from the data, providing a foundation for process improvement opportunities: careful consideration to applicant mentorship, including peers; uniform set of criteria for residency program websites; and investigating alternative match platforms, which may allow hard caps, flagging programs of higher interest, or wave application cycles. Overall, the otolaryngology applicant provides a unique perspective regarding the current state of the match and potential opportunities for system-wide improvement.
| S-EPMC5710552 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResidency recruitment is a high-stakes activity for all participants, yet there is limited information about how applicants choose among programs.ObjectiveThis study evaluated the importance applicants place on various residency program attributes; whether applicant priorities vary by sex, race/ethnicity, or specialty choice; and whether the importance of these factors changes over time.MethodsHighly ranked applicants to residency programs at 2 academic medical centers were surveyed annually from 2004 to 2012 regarding the importance of 26 characteristics in selecting a program. Mean ratings of importance for each factor were analyzed to assess priority for the overall applicant group, and whether priorities differed for subgroups (by sex, race/ethnicity, and specialty).ResultsOf 9669 applicants surveyed, 6285 (65%) responded. The 5 factors with highest rating of importance (overall and across all subgroups) were the program's ability to prepare residents for future training or position, resident esprit de corps, faculty availability and involvement in teaching, depth and breadth of faculty, and variety of patients and clinical resources. Small but significant differences in the ratings of some factors by sex and/or specialty group were identified. Institution-level characteristics, such as call rooms, salary, and benefits, were relatively unimportant. Applicant priorities were stable over the 9-year study period.ConclusionsHighly ranked applicants to competitive residency programs value educational aspects of the program most highly, along with resident morale. Top factors were consistent across subgroups and over the 9 years of the study. These findings have implications for resident recruitment strategies.
| S-EPMC4507921 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe evolving landscape of application processes for obstetrics and gynecology residency applicants poses many challenges for applicants and advisors. The lack of data coordination among national groups creates crucial gaps in information for stakeholder groups.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify the current state of the advising milieu for obstetrics and gynecology residency applicants and their career advisors, the annual Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics survey focused on US clerkship directors' experiences advising students through these processes.Study designA 23-item anonymous survey was developed that asked respondents about demographics and outcomes for the students that they advised through the 2021 application process and their experiences with dual applicants and students not matching. The survey was sent electronically to all obstetrics and gynecology clerkship directors with active Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics memberships in April 2021.ResultsOf 224 total clerkship directors, 143 (63.8%) responded to the survey, Of the 143 respondents, almost all (136 [95.1%]) served as career advisors, and 50 (35.0%) were aware of students dual applying. Furthermore, obstetrics and gynecology was rarely the backup to a more competitive specialty. For the 2021 application cycle, 79 of 143 respondents (55.2%) reported having students not successfully match into obstetrics and gynecology, with "academic concerns" followed by "poor communication skills" as the primary reasons cited for students not matching.ConclusionThis snapshot of clerkship directors' experiences advising students in the residency application process reveals notably high rates of dual applicants and students not matching into obstetrics and gynecology. This work fills key gaps in our knowledge of current processes and highlights the importance of career advising at multiple points during the application process.
| S-EPMC10585629 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOrthopaedic surgery is one of the most competitive specialties, resulting in many applicants going unmatched. Many unmatched applicants pursue a preliminary internship or research fellowship, but whether these activities make them more successful in subsequent match cycles has not been studied.ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of activities during the intervening period on match success in a subsequent cycle.MethodsAfter reviewing rank order lists for our program and National Resident Matching Program correspondence from 1994 to 2013, we identified 198 of 1216 ranked applicants (16.3%) who did not initially match. Of these, 57 applicants who matched through the Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program did not reapply to orthopaedics or trained overseas.ResultsOf 141 reapplicants, 56 matched into orthopaedic surgery, with 87.5% (P < .001) matching at a program in the same region where they had either completed their medical degree or postgraduate year, and 37.5% matching at their home institution (P < .001). Successful reapplicants after a research fellowship had a significantly higher number of publications than unsuccessful reapplicants (P < .05). There was no significant difference in success after research or internship (P = .80) and no significant difference in success rates for US versus international reapplicants (P = .43).ConclusionsSuccess of reapplication into orthopaedic surgery may be less dependent on the route taken during the interim period, and more dependent on developing relationships with faculty at a local or regional institution.
| S-EPMC4763390 | biostudies-literature