Sending a Signal: Evaluating the Impact of Program and Geographic Preference Signaling on the Internal Medicine Residency Match.

Background For over a decade, the number of residency applications has surged, a trend known as "application inflation." COVID-19 further intensified this trend, leading the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) to address the issue by introducing a supplemental application in the 2021-2022 cycle, allowing programs to identify applicants with a connection to their program or geographic region. For the 2022-2023 cycle, the number of program signals increased from five to seven. The impact of the supplemental application and the increase in signals on the likelihood of an applicant matching with a program has yet to be evaluated. Methods This retrospective cohort study evaluated the impact of program signaling and geographic preference on the matching likelihood in our internal medicine residency program. Data from MyERAS® and the Supplemental Application for 640 applicants who applied to our large, urban, university-based program in the Southeastern United States during the 2020-2021 and 2022-2023 application cycles were included. Using univariate and multivariate analysis, we examined the correlation between program signal, geographic preference, and final match location. Results Applicants who sent a program signal had nearly three-fold higher odds of matching with our program. Geographic preference was numerically but not statistically associated with higher odds of matching. Both signaling a preference for matching with a program in an urban environment and couples matching correlated with decreased odds of matching with our program. Geography was an important predictor of match location as residing in our AAMC geographic region, our four-state area, and our specific state had increased odds of matching with our program. Conclusions Signaling our program was associated with increased odds of matching with our program. Geographic preferences were less predictive of a match with our program; however, they did predict the likelihood of a match at a program within that region. Future studies are needed to ensure external validity.

Orphan Applicants in Orthopedic Surgery: Where Do Allopathic Applicants Without an Affiliated Residency Program Match?

Background  Orthopedic surgery is one of the most competitive specialties to match into a residency. With a plethora of qualified applicants and the subjective nature of matching into any residency program, it can be difficult to accurately assess the chances of successfully matching into orthopedic surgery and the types of programs an applicant will match into. The purpose of this study is to compare the types of programs that students from medical schools with and without home programs match. Methods This was a five-year retrospective study (2019 to 2023) analyzing 155 United States Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) programs and their orthopedic residency-matched students. Of the 155 programs, 40 were excluded from the study due to the lack of obtainable data. For each medical school, we analyzed several variables: the presence of a home program, the total number of orthopedic residency matches, residency program matches, and residency program affiliation (academic, community, university-affiliated community-based, military). Results Of the 2066 total matched applicants from institutions with home programs, 1508 (73%) matched into academic centers, 315 (15.3%) into university-affiliated community programs, 172 (8.3%) into community programs, and 71 (3.4%) into military programs. In contrast, of the 219 total matched applicants from institutions without home programs (orphan applicants), 144 (67.8%) matched into academic programs, 36 (16.4%) into university-affiliated community programs, 28 (12.8%) into community programs, and 11 (5%) into military programs. Conclusion A greater proportion of students from institutions with home programs matched into academic centers compared to orphan applicants (73% vs. 65.8%). A greater proportion of orphan applicants matched into community programs (12.8% vs. 8.3%).

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Geographic Placement of Applicants to General Surgery Residency Programs.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 greatly influenced medical education and the residency match. As new guidelines were established to promote safety, travel was restricted, visiting rotations discontinued, and residency interviews turned virtual. The purpose of this study is to assess the geographic trends in distribution of successfully matched General Surgery applicants prior to and after the implementation of pandemic guidelines, and what we can learn from them as we move forward. DESIGN: This was a retrospective review of 129 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited, academic General Surgery Residency Programs across 46 states and the District of Columbia. Categorically matched residents' medical schools (i.e., home institutions), medical school states, and medical school regions as defined per the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), were compared to the same geographic datapoints as their residency program. Preliminary residents were excluded. Residents in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 cycles were sub-categorized into the "pre-COVID" group and residents in the 2021 and 2022 applications cycles were sub-categorized into the "post-COVID" group. The percentages of residents who matched at their home institution, in-state, and in-region were examined. SETTING: Multiple ACGME-accredited, university-affiliated General Surgery Residency Programs across the United States of America. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4033 categorical General Surgery residents were included. RESULTS: Of 4033 categorical residents who matched between 2018 and 2022, 56.1% (n = 2,263) were in the pre-COVID group and 43.9% (n = 1770) were in the post-COVID group. In the pre-COVID group 14.4% (n = 325) of residents remained in-home (IH), 24.4% (n = 553) in-state (IS), and 37.0% (n = 837) in- region (IR), compared to 18.8% IH (n = 333), 27.8% IS (n = 492), and 39.9% IR (n = 706) in the post-COVID group, respectively. Significant increases for IH and IS resident matching at 4.5% and 3.4%, respectively, were noted in the post-COVID period (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic, and the ensuing changes adopted to promote safety, significantly impacted medical student opportunities and the General Surgery residency application process. General Surgery match data over the last 5 years reveals a statistically significant increase in the percentage of applicants matching at in-home and in-state institutions after the pandemic.

Mapping Proximity to Infectious Disease Physicians Across the United States.

Enduring shortages of infectious disease physicians across the United States continue despite efforts to mitigate the problem. The recent fellowship match results underscore the difficulty in rectifying that shortage. Our report sheds light on the current geographic distribution of US infectious disease physicians and highlights the challenges faced by rural communities.

Outcomes of the Internal Medicine Supplemental Application: Preliminary Data on the 2022-2023 Match.

INTRODUCTION: Preference signaling (program signals and geographic preference divisions) was introduced as a component of the supplemental application for internal medicine applicants applying to programs within the United States (USA) during the 2021-22 cycle. These signals were intended to address application inflation by allowing applicants to express interest in and increase their likelihood of receiving interviews from their top programs. There is little published data, however, to describe the impact of preference signaling on the likelihood of receiving interviews from a program. This study thus sought to analyze, in a small subset of US applicants, whether preference signals were associated with a higher likelihood of obtaining a residency interview. METHODS: A survey was distributed in March 2023 to US MD seniors from the four allopathic medical schools in North Carolina who applied to categorical internal medicine residency programs during the 2022-23 application cycle. The survey was developed by the research team to provide respondents with the opportunity to report data from the electronic residency application service (ERAS) application and provide data on interviews received, actions taken throughout the application season, and outcomes of the National Residency Match Program (NRMP) using a combination of free response and multiple choice questions. RESULTS: Forty-seven out of a total of 85 contacted (55%) applicants completed some or all of the survey. Of those who completed the entirety of the survey, 39 (82.98%) completed the supplemental portion of the application and the available preference signaling. Applicants in this study were 2.95 (Odds ratio, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.20 - 3.97, p<0.01) times as likely to receive an interview invitation from a program if they used a program signal. Applicants were 1.75 (odds ratio, 95% CI 1.38 - 2.21, p<0.01) times as likely to receive an interview invitation from a program in an indicated geographic preference division. Forty-seven percent (95% CI 31 - 64%) matched to a program they had sent a program signal to, and 97% (95% CI 78 - 100%) matched to a program in an indicated geographic preference division. CONCLUSIONS: The program signals and geographic preference division components of the supplemental application increased the likelihood of receiving an interview invitation but did not have a clear impact on match outcomes. Further research with larger sample sizes will be necessary to determine how these signals actually modify the outcomes of the NRMP.

Minimum United States Medical Licensing Examination and Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination Scores Often Do Not Align.

Background Many residency programs do not accept the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX-USA) alone for osteopathic applicants. Furthermore, among those programs that do accept the COMLEX-USA, it is unknown how programs scale their minimum COMLEX-USA scores compared to their minimum United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores. Objective Our objective was to examine the variation of relative within-program differences between minimum USMLE Step and COMLEX-USA Level scores required for consideration by United States residency programs. Methods We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access (FREIDA) database from April 2023, including the 10 specialties with the most training spots in 2022. These specialties were internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, emergency medicine, psychiatry, surgery, anesthesiology, obstetrics-gynecology, orthopedic surgery, and neurology. Within-program differences were calculated by subtracting the minimum USMLE Step 1 and 2 scores from the converted minimum USMLE Step 1 and 2 scores calculated from the minimum COMLEX-USA Level 1 and 2 scores using two conversion tools. We present differences as medians with interquartile ranges (IQR). Additionally, we report the proportion of programs with greater than 10-point differences for each step (1 and 2). Results Of the 3,364 accredited programs from the examined specialties, we included 1,477 in the Step 1 analysis and 1,227 in the Step 2 analysis with complete data. The median within-program difference between the minimum Step 1 score and the predicted Step 1 score was 12.0 (IQR 2.0, 17.0) using the Barnum and colleagues' conversion tool and -1.7 (IQR -6.2, 6.3) using the Smith and colleagues' tool. The median differences for Step 2 were 2.0 (IQR -8.0, 12.0) and -6.5 (IQR -13.9, -1.5) for each tool, respectively. Using the Barnum and Smith conversion tools, 937 (63%) and 435 (29%) programs had a greater than 10-point Step 1 score difference, respectively. Similarly, for Step 2, 564 (46%) and 515 (42%) programs had a greater than 10-point difference with each conversion tool. Conclusion There is wide variation in the within-program differences between minimum USMLE and predicted minimum USMLE (from COMLEX-USA) scores. Many programs have greater than 10-point differences, which may be a source of bias in osteopathic applicant selection.

Examining the Factors Influencing Applicants' Placement on One General Surgery Program's Rank Order List.

PURPOSE: Surgery residency applications include variables that determine an individual's rank on a program's match list. We performed this study to determine which residency application variables are the most impactful in creating our program's rank order list. METHODS: We completed a retrospective examination of all interviewed applicants for the 2019 match. We recorded United States Medical Licensing Examinations (USMLE) step I and II scores, class quartile rank from the Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE), Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership, geographic region, surgery clerkship grade, and grades on other clerkships. The MSPE and letters of recommendation were reviewed by two of the authors and assigned a score of 1 to 3, where 1 was weak and 3 was strong. The same two authors reviewed the assessments from each applicant's interview and assigned a score from 1-5, where 1 was poor and 5 was excellent. Univariate analysis was performed, and the significant variables were used to construct an adjusted multivariate model with significance measured at P < .05. RESULTS: Univariate analysis for all 92 interviewed applicants demonstrated that USMLE step 2 scores (P = .002), class quartile rank (P = .004), AOA status (P = .014), geographic location (P < .001), letters of recommendation (P < .001), and interview rating (P < .001) were significant in predicting an applicant's position on the rank list. On multivariate analysis only USMLE step 2 (P = .018) and interview (P < .001) remained significant. CONCLUSION: USMLE step 2 and an excellent interview were the most important factors in constructing our rank order list. Applicants with a demonstrated strong clinical fund of knowledge that develop a rapport with our faculty and residents receive the highest level of consideration for our program.

The Impact of a New Anesthesiology Residency Program on the Number of Medical Students Matching Into Anesthesiology at a Single Institution: A Retrospective Longitudinal Study.

Introduction There are projected workforce shortages within anesthesiology exacerbated by an increase in demand for anesthesia services and an aging anesthesia workforce. Given this mismatch, it is critical for the specialty to recruit the next generation of anesthesiologists and understand the factors affecting medical students' decision to apply to anesthesiology. This study aims to evaluate the impact of establishing a new anesthesiology residency program at a single institution on the number of medical students that match into anesthesiology in the subsequent years. Methods A single-center, retrospective longitudinal study examined the number of medical students matching into anesthesiology at a single institution between 2013 and 2023, five years before and after the establishment of an accredited anesthesiology residency program. The data were compared to aggregated data on all US medical student applicants through the National Resident Matching Program. Results The pre-anesthesiology residency match rate (2013-2018) of medical students from Alpert Medical School (AMS) was 2.47% while the post-anesthesiology residency match rate (2019-2023) was 4.30%. This represents a 74% increase in the average proportion of medical students matching into anesthesiology after the start of the residency program compared to a 20% increase nationally over the same time period. The rate of change of AMS matched applicants after the implementation of the AMS anesthesia residency program increased compared to the national applicant pool (p= 0.002). Conclusion The establishment of a new accredited anesthesiology residency program increased the proportion of medical students matching into anesthesiology at the affiliated medical school in the subsequent five years. Exposure to an academic anesthesiology program improves medical student interest and ultimately matches rates in anesthesiology, a vital tool to address the projected shortages in the anesthesiology workforce.

Virtual Recruitment in Surgical Residency Programs.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The Covid-19 pandemic forced residency programs to drastically change their interview processes and adopt virtual interviewing for the 2020-2021 match cycle. RECENT FINDINGS: While virtual interviewing decreased cost and increased convenience for applicants and programs involved in the match, it also introduced several potential disadvantages. Maximizing technological capabilities was an area of utmost concern at the start of the interview cycle, and multiple medical education organizations quickly recommended ways to move to virtual process, and to prevent and troubleshoot technical problems. However, other issues were less straightforward, such as how to address new sources of bias introduced by virtual interviewing, and how to ensure that programs and applicants could make informed decisions about their rank lists after only limited virtual interactions. Additionally, the increased convenience of interviewing raised concerns that students would accept more interviews, disrupting the established calculus programs used to determine how many interviews to offer per spot available. SUMMARY: In this review, we examine the benefits and disadvantages of virtual interviewing, review recommendations from the current literature on how to improve the process, and discuss what we learned from our own experience at an academic general surgery residency program over the course of this unprecedented interview season.

Application Fever: Reviewing the Causes, Costs, and Cures for Residency Application Inflation.

Over the past decade, the number of residency applications submitted per applicant has nearly doubled. This epidemic of "Application Fever" is expensive for applicants, burdensome for programs, and ultimately does not improve overall Match outcomes. In this review, we discuss the phenomenon of Application Fever, with a focus on contributing factors and costs of this behavior. Application Fever has its origins in the early 1990s. At that time, the number of residency applicants began to outpace the number of available positions. Because an applicant who applies to more residency programs has a greater probability of securing a residency position than an otherwise equivalent applicant who applies to fewer, "overapplication" became a dominant strategy and residency applicants began to apply to more residency programs each year. This trend was enhanced and enabled by the introduction of the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS). Although Application Fever is a rational decision for applicants, it imposes a substantial evaluative burden on program directors and necessitates the use of convenience screening metrics. We then briefly review potential solutions, including informational strategies, application limits, and marketplace incentives to reduce application numbers. Although a fixed cap on applications would reduce application numbers and facilitate a holistic selection process, greater transparency from residency programs regarding their selection criteria would be required to help applicants choose where to apply. To improve the residency application process for programs and applicants alike, we call upon the medical community to further study Application Fever and carefully consider solutions, including fixed application caps.

Information Quality for Residency Applicants in Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA) and Program Websites.

Background Today's residency applicants submit more applications than those in the past. To facilitate holistic review, many program directors have encouraged applicants to submit fewer applications. However, whether programs provide sufficient information to help applicants determine where to apply is unclear. Objective To evaluate the frequency of missing information on residency program websites and in the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database (FREIDA). Methods We used FREIDA to identify all categorical pediatric residency programs in the United States. We noted the presence of information programs reported in each FREIDA data field. We compared information available on the program website for consistency with the information in FREIDA and additionally searched for current resident information and any description of the qualities of applicants/residents desired on the program website. Results Two hundred and eleven pediatric residency programs were included in FREIDA. Approximately 25% of programs did not include basic information such as number of first year residents, salary, work hours, or consideration of applicants requiring work visas. Over half of programs did not report minimum licensing examination scores required for interview consideration. Discrepancies between information on program websites and FREIDA related to work visas occurred in 6-8% of programs. While 88% of program websites included information on current residents, only 17% included any description of the applicant attributes sought by the program. Conclusions Many pediatric residency programs do not provide much of the information that applicants need to help determine if a program is a good fit or whether their application is competitive.

Unexplored Questions About Away Rotations - A Student's Perspective.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Many fourth-year medical students complete away rotations as elective courses within their specialty of choice. The popularity of away rotations is increasing and has become nearly ubiquitous in certain competitive specialties ( Higgins et al., 2016). Benefits include obtaining letters of recommendation, diversifying clinical exposure, expanding research opportunities, and establishing a connection with a residency program. Some disadvantages include cost, stress, competitive nature among applicants, and separation from personal support networks. We are writing this to bring attention to the pros and cons of away rotations, and to the absence of substantial data available in the literature to help us understand the actual impact that away rotations may have on our residency matching outcomes.

Trends in the match rate and composition of candidates matching into categorical general surgery residency positions in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze the trends in the proportion of students from various educational backgrounds who matched into categorical general surgery (GS) residency positions. METHODS: National Resident Matching Program reports (1994 to 2014) were analyzed, and regression was used to estimate the trends for each group. RESULTS: The match rate into GS-categorical residency has remained stable; however, since 1994, we witnessed a 13% decrease in US seniors matching into GS. This has corresponded to proportional increases in matches for US citizens from international medical schools (US IMG, 1350%) and a 62% increase for non-US citizen international medical graduates (non-US IMG) into GS. In comparison, US IMG matches into all first-year postgraduate positions increased by 468%, whereas non-US IMG matches decreased by 15%. CONCLUSIONS: The stable match rates into categorical GS residencies are not because of US seniors but rather because of a rise in the number of IMGs. In contrast to the decreased reliance on non-US IMGs in all other specialties, GS is accepting a larger proportion of non-US IMGs.