Dataset Information

Perspectives on the Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Application Process During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the cancellation of away rotations and other experiences fundamental to orthopaedic surgery residency application. Limited information is available on the experiences of applicants and program directors (PDs) during the COVID-19 pandemic residency application cycle. This study aimed to evaluate the current perspectives of applicants and PDs regarding the orthopaedic surgery residency application process.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study using 2 independent but similar surveys that addressed multiple aspects of the application process during the COVID-19 pandemic, including perceived effect of virtual experiences. Between February and March 2021, the surveys were distributed to orthopaedic surgery applicants and orthopaedic residency PDs.

Results

In total, 113 applicants (20.1%) and 29 PDs (19.6%) completed the survey. Applicants applied to 97.6 programs and received 13.3 interviews. They participated in 2.4 virtual away rotations. In total, 79.3% of programs reported offering some form of virtual opportunity, including virtual away rotations (24.0%), virtual happy hours (64.0%), and virtual conferences (64.0%). Programs offering virtual away rotations hosted 46.8 rotators and only invited back 54.5% for an interview. Applicants were most concerned about the lack of away rotations, the interview, and networking during this cycle, and 51% reported less confidence in matching. The most important factors for influencing applicant rank lists were perceived happiness of residents, resident camaraderie, and geographic location. However, residency program social events were not well replicated in a virtual setting.

Discussion

The COVID-19 pandemic presented new challenges for applicants and PDs. Applicants had less clinical exposure and received less interview invites after virtual away rotations. Despite applying to more programs, applicants received fewer interviews than in previous years. The virtual experiences adopted in this cycle did not adequately replicate the social factors that applicants found most important when ranking a program. Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, PDs most highly valued away rotation performance, clinical rotation performance, and board examination scores when offering interviews.

SUBMITTER: Tawfik AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8492364 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundThe exceptional competitiveness of the orthopedic surgery specialty, combined with the unclear impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on residency recruitment, has presented significant challenges to applicants and residency program directors. With limited in-person opportunities in the 2020-2021 application cycle, applicants have been pressed to gauge chances and best fit by browsing program websites.ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to assess the accessibility and content of accredited orthopedic surgery residency program websites during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsUsing the online database of the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS), we compiled a list of accredited orthopedic surgery residency programs in the United States. Program websites were evaluated across four domains: program overview, education, research opportunities, and application details. Each website was assessed twice in July 2020, during a period of adjustment to the COVID-19 pandemic, and twice in November 2020, following the October ERAS application deadline.ResultsA total of 189 accredited orthopedic surgery residency programs were identified through ERAS. Of these programs, 3 (1.6%) did not have functional website links on ERAS. Data analysis of content in each domain revealed that most websites included program details, a description of the didactic curriculum, and sample rotation schedules. Between the two evaluation periods in July and November 2020, the percentage of program websites containing informative videos and virtual tours rose from 12.2% (23/189) to 48.1% (91/189; P<.001) and from 0.5% (1/189) to 13.2% (25/189; P<.001), respectively. However, the number of programs that included information about a virtual subinternship or virtual interview on their websites did not change. Over the 4-month period, larger residency programs with 5 or more residents were significantly more likely to add a program video (P<.001) or virtual tour (P<.001) to their websites.ConclusionsMost residency program websites offered program details and an overview of educational and research opportunities; however, few addressed the virtual transition of interviews and subinternships during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been accompanied by significant reductions in patient volumes for non-COVID-19-related conditions ranging from acute coronary syndrome to ischemic strokes to acute trauma. However, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient volumes for a broad range of orthopedic conditions remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with changes in patient volumes of 35 emergent (e.g. dislocations, open fractures), urgent (e.g. fractures), and nonurgent orthopedic conditions (e.g. osteoarthritis, sprains).MethodsA retrospective interrupted time-series analysis of patient volumes was conducted for 35 orthopedic conditions based on ICD-10 diagnosis codes. Patient hospitalizations and new problem visits were aggregated across two institutions in New York state, including one urban tertiary care orthopedic hospital, one urban academic medical center, and all state outpatient facilities affiliated with the orthopedic institution. Patient volumes in the COVID-19 peak period (03/2020-05/2020) and COVID-19 recovery period (06/2020-10/2020) were compared against pre-COVID-19 vol (01/2018-02/2020).ResultsOverall, 169,047 cases were included in the analysis across 35 conditions with 3775 emergent cases, 6376 urgent cases, and 158,896 nonurgent cases. During the COVID-19 peak period, patient caseloads for 1 out of 7 emergent conditions (p = 0.02) and 26 out of 28 urgent and nonurgent conditions (p < 0.05) were significantly reduced compared to the pre-COVID-19 period. During the COVID-19 recovery period, patient volumes in 3 out of 13 emergent and urgent conditions (p < 0.03) and 11 out of 22 nonurgent conditions (p < 0.04) were decreased compared to pre-COVID-19 vol.ConclusionsThis study found that the pandemic was associated with considerable changes in patient patterns for non-COVID-19 orthopedic conditions. The long-term effects of patient volume reductions on both patient outcomes and orthopedic health systems remain to be seen.Level of evidenceCohort study; level of evidence IV.

Project description:Introduction: This study compares rates of depression, suicidal ideation, and burnout among resident/fellow and attending physicians in orthopaedic surgery to other specialties during height/end of the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic at our institution. Main outcomes and measures included suicidal ideation, Patient Health Questionnaire for Depression (PHQ-9) scores for depression, and 2 single-item measures for emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. This study provides valuable information regarding orthopaedic surgeon mental health during world crises. Methods: This is a cross-sectional survey-based study of resident, fellow, and attending physicians from 26 specialties during and after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic at our institution from April 24, 2020 to May 15, 2020. The survey contained 22 items. This includes consent, demographics and general data, 2 single-item questions of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, and the PHQ-9. Subjects were eligible if they were a resident/fellow or attending physician at our institution. Results: The response rate for the study was 16.31%. Across all specialties rates were 6.2% depression, 19.6% burnout, and 6.6% suicidal ideation. The results for orthopaedic surgeons are as follows: 0% tentative diagnosis of depression, 3.8% suicidal ideation, and 4% burnout. Anesthesiology had the highest rate of depression (14.3%). Internal medicine and other non-surgical specialties had the highest rate of suicidal ideation (10.2%). Orthopaedic surgeons were significantly more likely to achieve work-life balance and experience less burnout than anesthesiologists and pediatricians. Discussion: Depression, suicidal ideation, and burnout continue to affect physicians across all specialties. These issues are amplified in light of crisis. Job satisfaction and rigorous training may be protective factors that allow orthopaedic surgeons to adapt to novel clinical settings under stress when compared to anesthesiologists and pediatricians. Resilience training and stress management strategies should continue to be investigated to better prepare physicians for world crises.

Project description:Over the last year, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread across the world as a global pandemic, bringing unprecedented changes to the healthcare landscape for patients and physicians. Medical trainees have been similarly affected, as medical schools throughout the United States have implemented remote learning-based curriculums and withdrawn third- and fourth-year students from in-hospital clerkships. Of particular importance is the impact of COVID-19 on current orthopaedic surgery residents applying to subspecialty fellowship programs. Because of the highly transmissible nature of the virus and current social distancing restrictions, orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship interviews are being held virtually during the 2020-2021 application cycle. This transition to videoconference interviewing may de-emphasize an applicant's unique personality or interpersonal interactions that are traditionally captured in a variety of settings during the interview day. In turn, this may lead to increased prioritization of various aspects of the application, such as the applicant's residency program, letters of recommendation, and research productivity. Matching to a sports medicine fellowship program is an inherently competitive process and the COVID-19 pandemic presents novel challenges to orthopaedic residents in their efforts to successfully match. The purpose of this review is to describe the changes made to the orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship interview process resulting from COVID-19 during the 2020-2021 application cycle and discuss how these changes may impact the future fellowship application process. This review discusses the changes made to the orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship interview process caused by COVID-19 during the 2020-2021 application cycle. This review also assesses how such changes may impact the future application process and proposes potential adaptations to the current virtual interview format if it should become the new standard moving forward.

Project description:BackgroundThe Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) placed unprecedented pressure on the healthcare system. Many institutions implemented a government-mandated restructured set of safety and administrative protocols to treat urgent orthopaedic trauma patients. The objective of this study was to compare two cohorts of patients, a COVID group and non-COVID control group, and to evaluate the effectiveness of safety measures outlined in the Rutgers Orthopaedic Trauma Patient Safety Protocol (ROTPSP). Secondary outcomes were to elucidate risk factors for complications associated with fractures and COVID-19.MethodsPatients treated for orthopaedic traumatic injuries were retrospectively identified between March and May 2020, and compared to a series of patients from the same time period in 2018. Main outcome measures included surgical site infections (SSI), length of stay (LOS), post-operative LOS (poLOS), presentation to OR time (PORT), and length of surgery.ResultsAfter review, 349 patients (201 non-COVID, 148 COVID) undergoing 426 surgeries were included. Average LOS (11.91 days vs. 9.27 days, p = 0.04), poLOS (9.68 days vs. 7.39 days, p = 0.03), and PORT (30.56 vs. 25.59 h, p < 0.01) was significantly shorter in the COVID cohort. There were less SSI in the COVID group (5) compared to the non-COVID group (14) (p = 0.03). Overall complications were significantly lower in the COVID group. Patients receiving Cepheid tests had significantly shorter LOS and poLOS compared to patients receiving the RNA and DiaSorin tests (p < 0.01 and p < 0.01, respectively). The Cepheid test carried the best benefit-to-cost ratio, 0.10, p < 0.05.ConclusionThe restructuring of care protocols caused by COVID-19 did not negatively impact perioperative complication rates, PORT or LOS. Cepheid COVID test type administered upon admission plays an integral role in a patient's hospital course by reducing both length of stay and hospital costs. This information demonstrates we can continue to treat orthopaedic trauma patients safely during the COVID-19 pandemic by utilizing strict safety protocols.