COVID-19's Impact on the 2020-2021 Resident Match: A Survey of Otolaryngology Program Directors.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To determine the impact coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) will have on the 2020-2021 otolaryngology (OTO-HNS) resident application cycle.Methods
A cross-sectional survey targeting OTO-HNS program directors (PD) was created and disseminated via email to PDs on May 28th 2020. Descriptive analyses of the 19-question survey was performed, and free text responses for certain suitable questions were thematically categorized into groups determined to be relevant during analysis.Results
Twenty-nine of 123 solicited PDs (23.6%) completed the survey. Nineteen (65.5%) respondents indicated they would not host away rotations (AR) in 2020, and 9 (31.0%) reported that they would consider away rotators without home programs. Regarding the historical importance of AR, 21 (72.4%) PDs stated they were either "extremely" or "very" important in evaluating candidates. Sixteen (55.2%) PDs stated that virtual interviews would impact their ability to properly gauge candidates and 12 (41.4%) were unsure. Eight PDs (27.6%) stated their evaluation of candidates will likely change, with a shift toward an increased reliance on letters of recommendation, research involvement, and clerkship grades. The large majority of PDs-25 (86.2%)-were not worried that the COVID-19 pandemic would affect the abilities of new interns beginning in 2021.Conclusion
Virtual interviews and engagement activities will mostly supplant sub-Is and AR for the 2020-2021 OTO-HNS application cycle. Surveyed PDs largely believe these will be insufficient in providing a comprehensive assessment of candidates, and will similarly limit applicants' ability to gauge residency programs. Criteria utilized to evaluate students is expected to change.
SUBMITTER: Kasle DA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8685750 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe cancellation of clinical rotations (CRs) and implementation of virtual interviews (VIs) profoundly affected the residency selection process leading up to the 2021 NRMP Match. The authors investigated how these changes influenced the caliber of applicants taken by general surgery (GS) residency programs from the perspectives of program directors (PDs).MethodsA 14 question, web-based electronic survey was emailed to PDs of ACGME-accredited GS residency programs. Questions sought program characteristics and PDs' perspectives regarding potential differences in subjective characteristics and clinical skills demonstrated by their 2021 Match class relative to previous resident classes.ResultsA total of 75 PDs (27.2%) responded to our survey. Most respondents observed no changes in residents' fit with their program (72.0%), communication skills (68.0%), responsiveness to clinical instruction and feedback (73.3%), work ethic (73.3%), and rotation evaluations (68.0%). Only 21.3% of PDs believed that VIs negatively impacted their ability to accurately assess applicant intangibles. Conversely, 56.0% of PDs reported that the cancellation of CRs in 2020 negatively affected residents' clinical competency at the start of residency. At 1-year following the 2021 NRMP Match, 30.7% of PDs reported that the clinical skills exhibited by their 2021 Match class were poorer than previous resident classes.DiscussionOur findings suggest that VIs limited selection committees' ability to accurately assess applicant's subjective characteristics to a lesser degree than previously described in the literature. Canceled CRs adversely affected the 2021 Match Class's clinical skills at the start of residency and at 1 year following the 2021 NRMP Match.
| S-EPMC9720422 | 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:IntroductionIn 2011, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) implemented new Common Program Requirements to regulate duty hours of resident physicians, with three goals: improved patient safety, quality of resident education and quality of life for trainees. We sought to assess Internal Medicine program director (IMPD) perceptions of the 2011 Common Program Requirements in July 2012, one year following implementation of the new standards.MethodsA cross-sectional study of all IMPDs at ACGME-accredited programs in the United States (N?=?381) was performed using a 32-question, self-administered survey. Contact information was identified for 323 IMPDs. Three individualized emails were sent to each director over a 6-week period, requesting participation in the survey. Outcomes measured included approval of duty hours regulations, as well as perceptions of changes in graduate medical education and patient care resulting from the revised ACGME standards.ResultsA total of 237 surveys were returned (73% response rate). More than half of the IMPDs (52%) reported "overall" approval of the 2011 duty hour regulations, with greater than 70% approval of all individual regulations except senior resident daily duty periods (49% approval) and 16-hour intern shifts (17% approval). Although a majority feel resident quality of life has improved (55%), most IMPDs believe that resident education (60%) is worse. A minority report that quality (8%) or safety (11%) of patient care has improved.ConclusionOne year after implementation of new ACGME duty hour requirements, IMPDs report overall approval of the standards, but strong disapproval of 16-hour shift limits for interns. Few program directors perceive that the duty hour restrictions have resulted in better care for patients or education of residents. Although resident quality of life seems improved, most IMPDs report that their own workload has increased. Based on these results, the intended benefits of duty hour regulations may not yet have been realized.
| S-EPMC4175662 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDespite the burdens that resident attrition places upon programs and fellow trainees, emergency medicine (EM) as a specialty has only begun to explore the issue. Our primary objectives were to quantify attrition in EM residency programs and elucidate the reasons behind it. Our secondary objectives were to describe demographic characteristics of residents undergoing attrition, personal factors associated with attrition, and methods of resident replacement.MethodsWe conducted a national survey study of all EM program directors (PDs) during the 2018-2019 academic year. PDs were asked to identify all residents who had left their program prior to completion of training within the last four academic years (2015-2016 to 2018-2019), provide relevant demographic information, select perceived reasons for attrition, and report any resident replacements. Frequencies, percentages, proportions, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained for program- and resident-specific demographics. We performed Fisher's exact tests to compare reasons for attrition between age groups.ResultsOf 217 PDs successfully contacted, 118 completed the questionnaire (response rate of 54%). A third of programs (39 of 118) reported at least one resident attrition. A total of 52 residents underwent attrition. Attrition was most likely to occur prior to completion of two years of training. Gender and underrepresented minority status were not associated with attrition. Older residents were more likely to leave due to academic challenges. The most common reported reason for attrition was to switch specialties. Resident replacement was found in 42% of cases.ConclusionOne-third of programs were affected by resident attrition. Gender and underrepresented minority status were not associated with attrition.
| S-EPMC7806332 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHazard pay for resident physicians has been controversial in the COVID-19 pandemic. Program director (PD) beliefs about hazard pay and the extent of provision to internal medicine (IM) residents are unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate hazard pay provision to residents early in the COVID-19 pandemic and pandemic and residency program characteristics associated with hazard pay.Design, setting, and participantsA nationally representative survey was conducted of 429 US/US territory-based IM PDs from August to December 2020.Main outcome and measuresHazard pay provision and PD beliefs about hazard pay were tested for association with factors related to the pandemic surge and program characteristics.ResultsResponse rate was 61.5% (264/429); 19.5% of PDs reported hazard pay provision. PD belief about hazard pay was equivocal: 33.2% agreed, 43.1% disagreed, and 23.7% were uncertain. Hazard pay occurred more commonly in the Middle-Atlantic Census Division (including New York City) and with earlier surges and greater resident participation in COVID-19 patient care. Hazard pay occurred more commonly where PDs supported hazard pay (74.5% vs. 22.1%, p = .018). Reasons most frequently given in support of hazard pay were essential worker status, equity, and schedule disruption. Those opposed cited professional obligation and equity.ConclusionHazard pay for IM residents early in the COVID-19 pandemic was nominal but more commonly associated with heavily impacted institutions. Although PD beliefs were mixed, positive belief was associated with provision. The unique role of residents as both essential workers and trainees might explain our varied results. Further investigation may inform future policy, especially in times of crisis.
| S-EPMC9088350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSince 2013, the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) has asked all programs to declare themselves to be "all in" or "all out" for the NRMP. Before this rule was enacted, program directors who were surveyed expressed concerns about what they anticipated with the change, including resources for increased applications and potential delays with residency start times.ObjectiveThis study investigated the positive and negative effects of the rule change on recruiting seen from the perspective of internal medicine (IM) program directors.MethodsIn this mixed model cross-sectional survey, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited IM program directors were surveyed regarding their impressions of the impact of the policy change. Data were aggregated using constant comparative analysis.ResultsA total of 127 of 396 (32%) IM program directors responded, and 122 of 127 (96%) identified their program as "all in." A total of 110 respondents expressed impressions of the rule change, with 48% (53 of 111) reporting positive responses, 28% (31 of 111) neutral responses, and 24% (27 of 111) negative responses. Programs with higher percentages of visa-holding residents had lower positive responses (37% [22 of 60] versus 61% [31 of 51]). Resident quality was felt to be unchanged or improved by most program directors (93%, 103 of 111), yet 24% (27 of 112) reported increases in delayed start times for visa-holding residents. Qualitative analysis identified increased fairness, at the expense of an increase in program resources as a result of the change.ConclusionsA slight majority of residency programs reported a neutral or negative impression of the rule change. Since the rule change, program directors noted increased application volume and delayed residency starts for visa-holding residents.
| S-EPMC5398148 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed unprecedented changes to medical education, including CV fellowship programs. CV fellowship PDs offer a unique perspective regarding the impact of the pandemic on CV medical education.ObjectivesThe 4th annual Cardiovascular Diseases (CV) Fellowship Program Directors (PDs) Survey sought to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on CV fellows and fellowship programs.MethodsThe survey contained 31 items examining the clinical, educational, and academic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on CV fellowship programs.ResultsSurvey response rate was 54%. Most respondents (58%) represented university-based programs. Most PDs felt that changes to clinical practice during the COVID-19 negatively impacted fellow education in cardiac catheterization (66%), outpatient cardiology (52%), nuclear imaging (51%), and echocardiography (50%). Despite improving attendance, 75% of PDs felt that virtual educational conferences adversely impacted interaction between participants. Only 22% felt they improved fellow education. Most PDs (85%) reported a negative impact of the pandemic on fellow well-being and burnout, and 57% reported a decrease in research productivity among fellows. Even though virtual recruitment allowed programs to interview more competitive candidates, most PDs felt that virtual interviews adversely impacted interactions between their fellows and candidates (71%) and their ability to convey the culture of their program (60%).ConclusionsMost CV fellowship PDs felt the COVID-19 pandemic brought changes that negatively impacted the clinical training, didactic learning, academic productivity, and well-being among cardiology fellows. The implications of these changes on the competency of cardiologists that trained during the COVID-19 pandemic deserve future study.
| S-EPMC11312764 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a wide-reaching impact. Graduate medical education of orthopedic surgeons was not spared from the jarring changes. Purpose: We sought to survey fellowship program directors in the field of orthopedic surgery about how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the education of the 2019 to 2020 and 2020 to 2021 fellowship classes and the future of their programs. Methods: In October 2020, an 18-item survey was distributed by an official of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) to the specialty societies that govern fellowship training. Each specialty society then distributed the survey to its respective program directors. A reminder email was sent during the enrollment period. Each respondent was able to complete the survey once. Survey questions were grouped into 3 sections: general information about the fellowship training programs, the impact of COVID-19 on the 2019 to 2020 fellowship class, and the future impact of COVID-19 on the fellowship training programs. Results: Of the 564 accredited orthopedic surgery fellowship programs in the United States, 190 directors responded. Of these, 73.59% reported COVID-19 had a negative impact on the 2019 to 2020 fellowship class. A normal distribution of responses was found regarding didactic and academic learning, research, and mentorship opportunities. A majority of respondents said they believe that there will be no negative impact on patient care the fellows provide in the years to come. Conclusion: Orthopedic surgery fellowship program directors acknowledged that while there were negative effects to training in the pandemic, they did not think these would negatively affect patient care provided by 2019 to 2020 fellows in the short and medium term. They also reported positive outcomes from the experience of the pandemic, including new ways to educate fellows.
| S-EPMC8753546 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe COVID-19 pandemic modified the Residency Match process for fourth-year medical students. In-person away rotations were discouraged, interviews were virtual, and traditional factors used to rank programs were absent. Here, we compare survey results administered to both the 2020 and 2021 Match applicants to assess the influence of the pandemic on the radiation oncology (RO) Match process.MethodsAn institutional review board-approved prospective cross-sectional study was conducted. The 2020 and 2021 RO Match applicants at a large RO program were invited to participate. Descriptive summary statistics were assessed.ResultsThe 2020 and 2021 Matches each had 76 applicants complete the survey with response rates of 54% and 57%, respectively. The 2 groups were predominantly white, cisgender male, single, and without children. Whereas 11% of 2020 applicants did not complete away rotations, 45% of 2021 applicants did not. For 2021 Match applicants, 65% of away rotations were performed virtually, whereas 51% were not for medical school credit. Of the applicants, 84% were satisfied with virtual interviews and 72% felt cost savings were worth not having in-person interviews. Whereas 49% of Match 2020 applicants spent >$5000 in interview costs, 0% of the Match 2021 applicants did so, with 45% spending <$100. Postinterview communications from programs increased during the pandemic from 36% to 42% in 2020 Match and 2021 Match, respectively. Although program culture was the most common factor influencing 2021 Match applicants program rankings, half of applicants did not gain a sense of program culture during virtual interviews.ConclusionsWe found 2021 Match applicants completed fewer away rotations, were satisfied with virtual interviews/reduced costs, and did not gain a sense of program culture through virtual rotations/interviews despite it being the most important ranking factor reported. This study supports further exploration of virtual away rotations and virtual interviews moving forward beyond the pandemic.
| S-EPMC8555343 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimsThe coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted the training of medical trainees internationally. The aim of this study was to assess the global impact of COVID-19 on endoscopy training from the perspective of endoscopy trainers and to identify strategies implemented to mitigate the impact on trainee education.MethodsTeaching faculty of gastroenterology (GI) training programs globally were invited to complete a 36-question web-based survey to report the characteristics of their training programs and the impact of COVID-19 on various aspects of endoscopy training, including what factors decisions were based on.ResultsThe survey response rate was 52.6% (305 out of 580 individuals); 92.8% reported a negative impact on endoscopy training, with suspension of elective procedures (77.1%) being the most detrimental factor. Geographic variations were noted, with European programs reporting the lowest percentage of trainee participation in procedures. A higher proportion of trainees in the Americas were allowed to continue performing procedures, and trainers from the Americas reported receiving the greatest support for endoscopy teaching.ConclusionThis study demonstrated that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant negative impact on GI endoscopy training internationally, as reported by endoscopy trainers. Focus-optimizing endoscopy training and assessment of competencies are necessary to ensure adequate endoscopy training.
| S-EPMC8505182 | biostudies-literature