No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: The National Residency Matching Program (NRMP) allows post-interview contact between residency applicants and residency programs. Thank-you communications represent one of the most common forms, but data on their value to applicants and program directors (PD) are limited. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of thank-you communications on applicant- and residency-program rank lists. Methods: Two anonymous, voluntary surveys were sent after the 2018 NRMP Match, one to applicants who were offered an interview at a single academic site in the 2017-2018 Match cycle, and one to EM PDs nationwide. The surveys were designed in conjunction with a nationally-recognized survey center and piloted and revised based on feedback from residents and faculty. Results: Of 196 residency applicants, 97 (49.5%) responded to the survey. Of these, 73/95 (76.8%) reported sending thank-you communications. Twenty-two of 73 (30%) stated that they sent thank-you communications to improve their spot on a program’s rank list; and 16 of 73 (21.9%) reported that they changed their rank list based upon the responses they received to their thank-you communications. Of 163 PDs, 99 (60.7%) responded to the survey. Of those PDs surveyed, 22.6% reported that an applicant could be moved up their program’s rank list and 10.8% reported that an applicant could move down a program’s rank list based on their thank-you communications (or lack thereof). Conclusion: The majority of applicants to EM are sending thank-you communications. A significant minority of applicants and PDs changed their rank list due to post-interview thank-you communications.

Purpose: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires all residency programs to provide increasing autonomy as residents progress through training, known as graded responsibility. However, there is little guidance on how to implement graded responsibility in practice and a paucity of literature on how it is currently implemented in emergency medicine (EM). We sought to determine how EM residency programs apply graded responsibility across a variety of activities and to identify which considerations are important in affording additional responsibilities to trainees.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of EM residency programs using a 23-question survey that was distributed by email to 162 ACGME-accredited EM program directors. Seven different domains of practice were queried.Results: We received 91 responses (56.2% response rate) to the survey. Among all domains of practice except for managing critically ill medical patients, the use of graded responsibility exceeded 50% of surveyed programs. When graded responsibility was applied, post-graduate year (PGY) level was ranked an “extremely important” or “very important” consideration between 80.9% and 100.0% of the time.Conclusion: The majority of EM residency programs are implementing graded responsibility within most domains of practice. When decisions are made surrounding graded responsibility, programs still rely heavily on the time-based model of PGY level to determine advancement.

Introduction: The “stable marriage” algorithm underlying the National Residency Match Program (NRMP) has been shown to create optimal outcomes when students submit true preference lists. Previous research has shown students may allow external information to affect their rank lists. The objective of this study was to determine whether medical students consistently make rank lists that reflect their true preferences. Methods: A voluntary online survey was sent to third-year students at a single midwestern medical school. Students were given hypothetical scenarios that either should or should not affect their true residency preferences and rated the importance of six factors to their final rank list. The survey was edited by a group of education scholars and revised based on feedback from a pilot with current postgraduate year 1 residents. Results: Of 175 students surveyed, 140 (80%) responded; 63% (88/140) reported that their “perceived competitiveness” would influence their rank list at least a “moderate amount. Of 135 students, 31 (23%) moved a program lower on their list if they learned they were ranked “low” by that program, while 6% (8/135) of respondents moved a program higher if they learned they were ranked “at the top of the list.” Participants responded similarly (κ = 0.71) when presented with scenarios asking what they would do vs what a classmate should do. Conclusion: Students’ hypothetical rank lists did not consistently match their true residency preferences. These results may stem from a misunderstanding of the Match algorithm. Medical schools should consider augmenting explicit education related to the NRMP Match algorithm to ensure optimal outcomes for students.