RESUMEN
In May 2022, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) published guidelines regarding interviews for the 2022-2023 residency application cycle. These guidelines recommended virtual interviews and discouraged "hybrid" interviewing. We conducted a survey of orthopaedic program directors (PDs) to understand their perspectives on these new guidelines and their plans for the upcoming cycle. Methods: A 19-question multicenter, cross-sectional research survey was emailed to 98 PDs (38.8% response rate) through Qualtrics XM. Contact information was obtained from a public national database. Results: Most orthopaedic residency programs (60.5%) were planning on conducting in-person interviews before any AAMC and hospital guidelines, and most (65.8%) will likely be conducting virtual interviews post-guidelines. PDs voiced mixed opinions about virtual interviews (39.4% in favor vs. 47.4% against). PDs were also split on whether forgoing the AAMC guidance would be irresponsible for residency programs (47.4% believe it would be irresponsible vs. 44.8% believe it would not); however, a plurality are in favor of the AAMC's guidance (42.1%). Furthermore, PDs agreed that virtual interviews have disadvantages including favoring top-tier applicants, students from home institutions, and in-person rotators, making ranking applicants and learning about a program's culture more difficult. Most PDs (84.2%) felt that hybrid interviews would disadvantage applicants who would choose the virtual option. Conclusion: AAMC guidance seems to be influencing how most orthopaedic surgery programs will conduct residency interviews for the 2022-2023 cycle. Most PDs agreed with the AAMC guidelines but voiced concerns regarding several disadvantages for all 3 proposed interview options (virtual, in-person, and hybrid). Our results indicate that the recent AAMC guidelines may have contributed to a shift in opinions among PDs but are not sufficient to create a consensus on the best practices for residency interviews. Our findings should encourage solutions focused on the deeper systemic issues within the orthopaedic application process in the post-coronavirus 2019 pandemic era.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To determine how hospitals across the United States determined allocation criteria for remdesivir, approved in May 2020 for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) through an emergency use authorization, while maintaining fair and ethical distribution when patient needs exceeded supply. METHODS: A electronic survey inquiring as to how institutions determined remdesivir allocation was developed. On June 17, 2020, an invitation with a link to the survey was posted on the Vizient Pharmacy Network Community pages and via email to the American College of Clinical Pharmacy's Infectious Disease Practice and Research Network listserver. RESULTS: 66 institutions representing 28 states responded to the survey. The results showed that 98% of surveyed institutions used a multidisciplinary team to develop remdesivir allocation criteria. A majority of those teams included clinical pharmacists (indicated by 97% of respondents), adult infectious diseases physicians (94%), and/or adult intensivists (69%). Many teams included adult hospitalists (49.2%) and/or ethicists (35.4%). Of the surveyed institutions, 59% indicated that all patients with COVID-19 were evaluated for treatment, and 50% delegated initial patient identification for potential remdesivir use to treating physicians. Prioritization of remdesivir allocation was often determined on a "first come, first served" basis (47% of respondents), according to a patient's respiratory status (28.8%) and/or clinical course (24.2%), and/or by random lottery (22.7%). Laboratory parameters (10.6%), comorbidities (4.5%), and essential worker status (4.5%) were rarely included in allocation criteria; no respondents reported consideration of socioeconomic disadvantage or use of a validated scoring system. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the inconsistencies of US medical centers' methods for allocating a limited pharmacotherapy resource that required rapid, fair, ethical and equitable distribution. The medical community, with citizen participation, needs to develop systems to continuously reevaluate criteria for treatment allocation as additional guidance and data emerge.