No abstract

Objective To (1) review concepts of medical hierarchy; (2) examine the role of medical hierarchy in medical education and resident training; (3) discuss potential negative impacts of dysfunctional hierarchy in medical and surgical training programs, focusing on otolaryngology; and (4) investigate solutions to these issues. Data Sources Ovid Medline, Embase, GoogleScholar, JSTOR, Google, and article reference lists. Review Methods A literature search was performed to identify articles relating to the objectives of the study using the aforementioned data sources, with subsequent exclusion of articles believed to be outside the scope of the current work. The search was limited to the past 5 years. Conclusions Two types of hierarchies exist: “functional” and “dysfunctional.” While functional medical hierarchies aim to optimize patient care through clinical instruction, dysfunctional hierarchies have been linked to negative impacts by creating learning environments that discourage the voicing of concerns, legitimize trainee mistreatment, and create moral distress through ethical dilemmas. Such an environment endangers patient safety, undermines physician empathy, hampers learning, lowers training satisfaction, and amplifies stress, fatigue, and burnout. On the other hand, functional hierarchies may improve resident education and well-being, as well as patient safety. Implications for Practice Otolaryngology–head and neck surgery programs ought to work toward creating healthy systems of hierarchy that emphasize collaboration and improvement of workplace climate for trainees and faculty. The goal should be to identify aspects of dysfunctional hierarchy in one’s own environment with the ambition of rebuilding a functional hierarchy where learning, personal health, and patient safety are optimized.

No abstract

Objective To (1) summarize strategies proposed in the recent otolaryngology–head and neck surgery (OTO-HNS) literature for improving the residency application and selection process, (2) evaluate the effects of recently implemented changes to the OTO-HNS match, and (3) discuss recommendations for future changes to the OTO-HNS residency application and selection process. Data Sources PubMed, Medline Ovid database, and article reference lists. Review Methods A structured literature search was performed to identify current English language articles relating to the objectives of this study using the aforementioned data sources, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The search was limited to submissions published between January 1, 2015, and January 1, 2020. Conclusions Numerous proposals have been made for improving the otolaryngology residency application and selection process and addressing the competitive nature of the Match. These proposals include but are not limited to mandating a secondary essay, implementing consortia and early match processes, using a signaling system, conducting regional and web-based interviews, offering early engagement with interest groups, instituting a hard cap on applications, increasing costs of applying, counseling self-restraint to prospective applicants, and creating application filters. Implications for Practice As the volume of literature surrounding the OTO-HNS Match continues to increase, this review aims to provide a summary of past proposals and serve as a guide for possible future innovations. We propose 3 initiatives that may improve the residency application and selection process for both program and resident, with minimal impact to the current National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Match structure.

Introduction: The objectives of this study among facial plastic and reconstructive surgeons (FPRS), include (1) quantifying the use of telemedicine, (2) examining the impact of novel coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) on telemedicine practices, (3) highlighting the types of telemedicine employed, (4) anticipating how telemedicine will be utilized in the future, and (5) describing FPRS' attitudes and understanding of telemedicine technologies. Study Type: Cross-sectional survey. Methods: A 6-13 question survey was sent to the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery membership. Descriptive analyses were performed, along with a Fisher's exact test. Results: We received 100 responses from a diverse group of surgeons across the United States. Overall, 91% of responders utilize telemedicine, of which 76.9% began during the COVID-19 pandemic. 33.3% of responders thought that their platforms were not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant or were unsure. Of those that utilize telemedicine, the two biggest concerns were difficulties with physical examination (69.2%) and lack of human connection (44%). 75.8% of telemedicine utilizers plan to incorporate telemedicine into their practice moving forward. Of all responders, 71% believed that telemedicine will have a positive effect on the field of FPRS, although on univariate analysis those in practice >20 years were more likely to believe that there will be no effect or a negative effect ( p = 0.014). Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of telemedicine among FPRS in the United States. The great majority of responders plan to incorporate telemedicine into their practice even after the pandemic subsides and believe that telemedicine will have a net positive effect on the field of FPRS.

The Federation of State Medical Boards and the National Board of Medical Examiners recently announced a change in the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scoring convention to take effect, at the earliest, on January 1, 2022. There are many reasons for this change, including decreasing medical student stress and incentivizing students to learn freely without solely focusing on Step 1 performance. The question remains how this will affect the future of the otolaryngology–head and neck surgery match. By eradicating Step 1 grades, other factors, such as research, may garner increased importance in the application process. Such a shift may discriminate against students from less well-known medical schools, international medical graduates, and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, who have fewer academic resources and access to research. Residency programs should try to anticipate such unintended consequences of the change and work on solutions heading into 2022.

To the Editor In their Viewpoint, Salehi et al 1 proposed a "star system" in which otolaryngology residency applicants can indicate particular interest in programs, similar to a "rose-sending system" previously suggested in orthopedic surgery. 2 In the economics literature, these systems are known as preference signaling mechanisms and have been successfully implemented in the American Economic Association (AEA) job market for economics graduate students since 2006. Its rationale, design, and outcomes should inform the current proposal. 3 Residency placement involves 2 phases: information sharing via electronic applications and interviews, then matching the preferences of interviewees and programs. The latter phase is accomplished by an algorithm that the National Resident Matching Program ("the Match") administers. This algorithm was a basis for awarding the 2012 Nobel Prize in Economics to Lloyd Shapley and Alvin Roth. Roth notes that the former phase, however, is congested in that not all interested candidates can be adequately considered. 2 Medical students submit excessive applications, inundating faculty who have limited time to read files. Interviewing is costly for both programs and applicants and thus a scarce opportunity. To avoid unfilled positions in the Match, resource-limited programs must consider at the preinterview stage not simply whether an applicant is attractive, but also whether she is attainable.Signaling can mitigate interview congestion. 2 For example, a strong applicant who has an unexpected geographic preference may choose to signal to an average program in that locale who might otherwise have dismissed the applicant as out of their league. 3 Ensuring a limited number of signals provides credibility. 4 Salehi et al 1 suggested that applicants be allowed to send stars to a maximum of 10 programs, 1 but this is likely too high to be effective. Roth helped design the AEA job market to limit applicants to 2 signals each so that their scarcity provides stronger informative value. 2 Moreover, a limit of 2 signals should reassure applicants that programs would not erroneously infer unattainability from the absence of a signal. After all, about one-third of US MD students match outside of their top 2 ranks. 5 Limited signaling mechanisms are shown to increase the chance of receiving a preferred interview. 3,4 If implemented correctly, signaling may play a valuable role in optimizing the resident selection process.

The ongoing COVID-19 outbreak has created obstacles to health care delivery on a global scale. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), many of which already suffered from unmet surgical and medical needs, are at great risk of suffering poor health outcomes due to health care access troubles brought on by the pandemic. Craniofacial outreach programs (CFOP)—a staple for craniofacial surgeons—have historically provided essential care to LMICs. To date, there has not been literature discussing the process of resuming CFOP mission trips. Herein, we propose a roadmap to help guide future journeys, as well as summarize practical considerations.