Dataset Information

Resident recruitment in the COVID-19 era: factors influencing program ranking by residents applying to a family medicine-emergency medicine training program.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The COVID-19 pandemic has created numerous unique challenges for the recruitment of prospective trainees. Cancellation of visiting electives and in-person interviews created challenges for programs to showcase elements that have been shown to influence applicants' program selection, including geographical considerations and program collegiality. Novel strategies have been recommended and employed to facilitate candidate recruitment, but it is unclear how influential such strategies are on candidates' program ranking. It is also unclear what factors influence program selection among CCFP(EM) candidates. We sought to evaluate the impact of novel recruitment strategies on applicants' ranking of the University of Ottawa CCFP(EM) program and determine factors which were most influential in applicants' first-choice program selection.

Methods

An online survey was distributed to all candidates (n = 127) who applied to the University of Ottawa CCFP(EM) program. The survey instrument included 33 items. Respondents were asked to rate on a 3-point scale how influential specific recruitment strategies were on their ranking of our program and the influence of different training factors on their selection of first-choice program.

Results

The survey response rate was 27% (34/127). Recruitment strategies rated as most positively influential included virtual one-on-one meetings with program directors (100%), virtual Q&A sessions (77.8%), virtual communication with chief residents (73.3%), and a mailed personalized recruitment package (72.2%). The top factors influencing applicants' first-choice program selection included: collegiality between faculty and residents (96.4%); level of responsibility given to residents (96.4%); support within the program (96.4%); and procedural opportunities within the program (96.3%).

Conclusion

Facilitating virtual personal interaction with program leadership is highly influential in how CCFP(EM) candidates rank programs. CCFP(EM) candidates value characteristics of a training program over the geographical location and available amenities. Program leaders should consider these findings when recruiting prospective candidates.

SUBMITTER: Leppard J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8390012 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEmergency medicine (EM) applicants consider many factors when selecting residency programs. Prior studies have demonstrated that applicants consider geography as well as modifiable/nonmodifiable program factors. Less attention, however, has been paid to underrepresented groups. Additionally, the prevalence and characteristics of "red flags," or factors that may lead an applicant to lower a program's rank or not rank it at all, remain unknown in EM. Our objective was to describe the factors that influence current EM-bound medical students' residency selection focusing on underrepresented applicants and red flags encountered during the recruitment process.MethodsWe conducted a mixed-methods survey study of EM-bound graduates from U.S. medical schools in the 2020 application cycle. Quantitative analysis included descriptive statistics, measures of central tendency, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), nonparametric tests for ordinal data, and logistic regression. For the qualitative portion of the study, two independent reviewers performed a thematic analysis of the red flag free-text responses. Discrepancies were addressed via consensus with third-party oversight.ResultsOur survey response rate was 49%, and most applicants considered both geographic and program factors. Underrepresented applicants prioritized program diversity, program commitment to the underserved, neighborhood/community, and patient population. Of all respondents, 71% reported red flags. Women had a significantly higher odds of encountering red flags (odds ratio = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.25 to 2.18). Red flags included seven key themes: violations of regulatory standards, program characteristics, interview day experience, program culture, interpersonal interactions, lack of fit, and quality of life; subthemes included lack of diversity and racism.ConclusionsModifiable/nonmodifiable program factors and geography continue to influence EM-bound applicants' residency choices. Underrepresented applicants place a higher value on diversity, community, and patients served. Residency programs should consider modifiable factors and self-assess for red flags to successfully recruit the next generation of EM physicians.

Project description:IntroductionMedical professionalism is a core competency for emergency medicine (EM) trainees; but defining professionalism remains challenging, leading to difficulties creating objectives and performing assessment. Because professionalism is dynamic, culture-specific, and often taught by modeling, an exploration of trainees' perceptions can highlight their educational baseline and elucidate the importance they place on general conventional professionalism domains. To this end, our objective was to assess the relative value EM residents place on traditional components of professionalism.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional, multi-institutional survey of incoming and graduating EM residents at four programs. The survey was developed using the American Board of Internal Medicine's "Project Professionalism" and the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education definition of professionalism competency. We identified 27 attributes within seven domains: clinical excellence, humanism, accountability, altruism, duty and service, honor and integrity, and respect for others. Residents were asked to rate each attribute on a 10-point scale. We analyzed data to assess variance across attributes as well as differences between residents at different training levels or different institutions.ResultsOf the 114 residents eligible, 100 (88%) completed the survey. The relative value assigned to different professional attributes varied considerably, with those in the altruism domain valued significantly lower and those in the "respect for others" and "honor and integrity" valued significantly higher (p<0.001). Significant differences were found between interns and seniors for five attributes primarily in the "duty and service" domain (p<0.05). Among different residencies, significant differences were found with attributes within the "altruism" and "duty and service" domains (p<0.05).ConclusionResidents perceive differences in the relative importance of traditionally defined professional attributes and this may be useful to educators. Explanations for these differences are hypothesized, as are the potential implications for professionalism education. Because teaching professional behavior is taught most effectively via behavior modeling, faculty awareness of resident values and faculty development to address potential gaps may improve professionalism education.