Geographic Trends in the Otolaryngology Match (2016-2020).

OBJECTIVE: Presenting geographic matching trends over 5 match cycles (2016-2020) to serve as a context for changes in residency match outcomes due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Single academic institution-affiliated otolaryngology-head and neck surgery residency program. METHODS: Residency match outcomes for all applicants to our institution (2015-2019) were collected from the National Residency Matching Program, including medical school and matched program. Matches were categorized as home program, home region, or out of region and sorted by US geographic region. Statistical analysis included frequencies, totals, χ2 testing, and binary logistic regression. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2020, the US MD senior match rate was 84.9%: 18.9% to home programs, 35.7% to home region, and 45.3% to out of region. Rates were similar across regions and decreased over time. Westerners matched to home programs more than Southerners or Midwesterners (27.5% vs 16.0% and 16.0%, P < .01). Southerners and Westerners were more likely to match within their regions (South: 63.1%, P = .011, odds ratio [OR] = 1.296, 95% CI, 1.060-1.584; West: 42.0%, P = .018, OR = 1.462, 95% CI, 1.066-2.004). Matching from out of region was more likely in the West and less likely in the South (West: 58.0%, P = .017, OR = 1.379, 95% CI, 1.059-1.796; South: 36.9%, P < .001, OR = 0.584, 95% CI, 0.47-0.727). CONCLUSION: From 2016 to 2020 in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, about 1 in 5 matches were to home institutions, a trend that appeared to be more common in the West. Over 4 out of 5 trainees match to nonhome programs, and nearly half relocate to a new region for training. Changes to travel, rotations, and interviews due to COVID-19 may influence these trends.

Assessment of patient recognition of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated olfactory loss and recovery: a longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: The clinical course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) olfactory dysfunction remains poorly characterized, often limited by self-reported measures. Given the logistical challenges of psychophysical testing, understanding the longitudinal relationship between self-reported and quantitative measures can help accurately identify patients with persistent olfactory dysfunction. This study aimed to longitudinally correlate measured and subjective olfactory function in COVID-19 subjects. METHODS: A prospective, longitudinal study evaluating subjective and measured olfaction was conducted on ambulatory COVID-19 subjects. Olfaction scores were obtained using a visual analogue scale (VAS) (0 = anosmia, 10 = normosmia) and the validated 12-item Brief Smell Identification Test (BSIT). Weekly testing was performed until recovery (BSIT ≥ 9/12 and/or VAS = 10/10) or study completion. RESULTS: Eighty-six polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive COVID-19 subjects were recruited ≤3 days from diagnosis and 52 completed longitudinal testing. Among those with self-reported smell loss at recruitment, similar levels (75.8%) of objective (BSIT ≥ 9/12) and subjective recovery were obtained using a VAS cutoff ≥8, yet only 30.3% reported complete subjective recovery (VAS = 10). Median times to objective and complete subjective olfactory recovery were 12 ± 2.3 and 24 ± 3.5 days, respectively. Although both measures showed chemosensory improvement, the distributions of objective and full subjective olfactory recovery differed significantly (log rank test χ2 = 6.46, degrees of freedom [df] = 1, p = 0.011). Overall correlation between BSIT and VAS scores was moderate to strong across longitudinal follow-up (rs = 0.41-0.65). CONCLUSION: Self-reported and psychophysically measured COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction improve at similar levels and are moderately correlated longitudinally, yet there is a significant delay in complete subjective recovery. Psychophysical testing in conjunction with qualitative assessments may be considered for counseling and follow-up of patients with COVID-19 smell loss.

Pre-clinical remote undergraduate medical education during the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey study.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has necessitated a sudden transition to remote learning in medical schools. We aimed to assess perceptions of remote learning among pre-clinical medical students and subsequently to identify pros and cons of remote learning, as well as uncover gaps to address in ongoing curricular development. METHODS: A survey was distributed to first- and second-year medical students at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine in March 2020. Frequencies of responses to structured multiple-choice questions were compared regarding impacts of remote learning on quality of instruction and ability to participate, value of various remote learning resources, living environment, and preparedness for subsequent stages of training. Responses to open-ended questions about strengths and weaknesses of the remote curriculum and overall reflections were coded for thematic content. RESULTS: Of 268 students enrolled, 104 responded (53.7% of first-year students and 23.9% of second-year students). Overall, students felt that remote learning had negatively affected the quality of instruction and their ability to participate. Most (64.1%) preferred the flexibility of learning material at their own pace. Only 25.5% of respondents still felt connected to the medical school or classmates, and feelings of anxiety and isolation were noted negatives of remote learning. Most second-year students (56.7%) felt their preparation for the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 exam was negatively affected, and 43.3% felt unprepared to begin clerkships. In narrative responses, most students appreciated the increased flexibility of remote learning, but they also identified several deficits that still need to be addressed, including digital fatigue, decreased ability to participate, and lack of clinical skills, laboratory, and hands-on learning. CONCLUSIONS: Videocasted lectures uploaded in advance, electronic health record and telehealth training for students, and training for teaching faculty to increase technological fluency may be considered to optimize remote learning curricula.

Student Perspectives on Remote Medical Education in Clinical Core Clerkships During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: To assess student perceptions of remote learning curricula implemented by clinical clerkships at a single US medical school during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: Students enrolled in core clinical clerkships at the UC San Diego School of Medicine from March to April 2020 were sent an anonymous online survey, assessing components of remote learning curricula via quantitative rating and free-response questions. RESULTS: Of 132 students enrolled, 96 (73%) completed the survey. Online question banks, remote progress reviews, and telehealth sessions were rated as the most valuable resources, while textbooks were rated least valuable. Most students felt that the number of resources was adequate (69/94, 74%), the quantity of required content was appropriate (77/93, 83%), and there was a good balance of rigidity versus flexibility in the schedule (81/94, 86%). Most students felt "prepared" or "somewhat prepared" for the shelf examination (61/91, 67%) and for the next year of medical training (73/94, 78%). In narrative reflections, students valued the flexibility afforded by remote curricula but desired some weekly structure. Students enjoyed expanded access to learning resources and participating in interactive remote sessions. Students expressed anxiety about the pandemic and uncertainty regarding medical education, but transparent communication from clerkship directors helped assuage these concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Student participation in direct patient care is fundamental to medical school core clerkships and was negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Strategic incorporation of select remote learning components into clinical clerkships may permit a favorable student experience even when opportunities for on-site participation are limited.

Association of subjective olfactory dysfunction and 12-item odor identification testing in ambulatory COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Acute loss of smell and taste are well-recognized symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yet the correlation between self-reported and psychophysical olfactory function remains unclear. Understanding the reliability of self-reported smell loss in ambulatory cases can assess the utility of this screening measure. METHODS: A prospective, longitudinal study evaluating patient-reported and measured olfactory function using the validated 12-item Brief Smell Identification Test (BSIT) was conducted on adult outpatients with COVID-19. Patient-reported olfaction scores using a visual analog scale (VAS) were obtained at baseline, time of COVID-19 testing, and time of BSIT completion. Linear associations between VAS and BSIT were evaluated using Spearman's correlation coefficient and the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of VAS scores were calculated. Logistic regression identified characteristics associated with accurate assessment of olfactory function. RESULTS: A total of 81 polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 positive subjects, of whom 54 self-reported smell loss, were prospectively recruited ≤5 days from diagnosis date between May 8, 2020, and July 8, 2020. Self-reported smell loss had good discriminative ability in identifying abnormal BSIT (area under receiver operating curve [AUC] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 0.92). A VAS <5 demonstrated sensitivity of 0.62 and specificity of 0.94 for predicting hyposmia (BSIT ≤8) with accuracy of 82.7%, whereas a VAS <9 had highest sensitivity at 0.86. Moderate bivariate linear associations were found between VAS and BSIT scores (rs = 0.59, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Self-reported olfactory loss associated with COVID-19 has a strong ability to predict abnormal olfactory function though the 2 measures are moderately correlated. Subjective olfactory assessment is useful in screening olfactory dysfunction at early disease time points when psychophysical testing cannot be conducted.