Otolaryngology residency selection: are we doing it right?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article will provide an overview of recent disruptions to the otolaryngology residency match process and conclude with questions and resources that can guide future selection system design. RECENT FINDINGS: During the implementation of the single accreditation system, the loss of osteopathic programs, reduction of osteopathic leadership positions, and lack of interest in Osteopathic Recognition represent serious threats to the profession; this has implications for the distribution of the otolaryngology workforce, plausibly decreasing healthcare access in less-populated communities. Next, the impacts of COVID-19 reverberated throughout the application process, including the reduction/elimination of away rotations, modification of application requirements, conversion to virtual interviews, and initiation of preference signaling. Soon, the transition to pass/fail scoring for the United States Medical Licensing Exam Step 1 could stimulate a paradigm shift, with a heightened emphasis on holistic review. SUMMARY: The last two match cycles have been the most dynamic and unpredictable in decades. Out of the commotion, the otolaryngology community has an opportunity for a fresh start, combining insights from past literature with recent articles compiled for this review. Moving forward, it will be advantageous to approach residency selection as a well-executed quality improvement project, requiring continuous assessment and adjustment.

COVID-19 Transmission to Health Care Personnel During Tracheostomy Under a Multidisciplinary Safety Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Tracheostomies are highly aerosolizing procedures yet are often indicated in patients with COVID-19 who require prolonged intubation. Robust investigations of the safety of tracheostomy protocols and provider adherence and evaluations are limited. OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate of COVID-19 infection of health care personnel involved in COVID-19 tracheostomies under a multidisciplinary safety protocol and to investigate health care personnel's attitudes and suggested areas for improvement concerning the protocol. METHODS: All health care personnel involved in tracheostomies in COVID-19-positive patients from April 9 through July 11, 2020, were sent a 22-item electronic survey. RESULTS: Among 107 health care personnel (80.5%) who responded to the survey, 5 reported a positive COVID-19 test result (n = 2) or symptoms of COVID-19 (n = 3) within 21 days of the tracheostomy. Respondents reported 100% adherence to use of adequate personal protective equipment. Most (91%) were familiar with the tracheostomy protocol and felt safe (92%) while performing tracheostomy. Suggested improvements included creating dedicated tracheostomy teams and increasing provider choices surrounding personal protective equipment. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary engagement in the development and implementation of a COVID-19 tracheostomy protocol is associated with acceptable safety for all members of the care team.

A Novel Ticket System for Capping Residency Interview Numbers: Reimagining Interviews in the COVID-19 Era.

The 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has led to dramatic changes in the 2020 residency application cycle, including halting away rotations and delaying the application timeline. These stressors are laid on top of a resident selection process already under duress with exploding application and interview numbers-the latter likely to be exacerbated with the widespread shift to virtual interviewing. Leveraging their trainee perspective, the authors propose enforcing a cap on the number of interviews that applicants may attend through a novel interview ticket system (ITS). Specialties electing to participate in the ITS would select an evidence-based, specialty-specific interview cap. Applicants would then receive unique electronic tickets-equal in number to the cap-that would be given to participating programs at the time of an interview, when the tickets would be marked as used. The system would be self-enforcing and would ensure each interview represents genuine interest between applicant and program, while potentially increasing the number of interviews-and thus match rate-for less competitive applicants. Limitations of the ITS and alternative approaches for interview capping, including an honor code system, are also discussed. Finally, in the context of capped interview numbers, the authors emphasize the need for transparent preinterview data from programs to inform applicants and their advisors on which interviews to attend, learning from prior experiences and studies on virtual interviewing, adherence to best practices for interviewing, and careful consideration of how virtual interviews may shift inequities in the resident selection process.