Communication between Programs and Applicants during Residency Selection

Miller, John Bernard; Schaad, Douglas C.; Crittenden, Robert; Oriol, Nancy E.; MacLaren, Carol F.

doi:10.1097/00001888-200304000-00018

Cited by 21 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Suggestions for this model come from the same literature that has reported the ethical violations in other medical residency match programs 3, 4, 16, 18, 19, 20. The recommendations to programs can be summarized as

Rank according to quality of the candidate and not on how highly it is believed that they will rank the programs.

Do not directly or indirectly divulge ranking intent; and do not solicit this information from candidates.

Eliminate postinterview communications to further minimize the risk of divulging or soliciting rank intent information.

…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ethical violations and discriminatory behavior in the MedPhys Match

Hendrickson

Juang²,

Rodrigues

et al. 2017

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this survey study is to investigate behaviors in conflict with the ethical standards of the Medical Physics Residency (MedPhys) Match (MPM) process as stated in the MPM rules (a) and with the nondiscrimination regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (b), in addition to other behaviors that may in other ways erode the fairness of the system.MethodsA survey was sent to all applicants and program directors registered for the 2015 and 2016 MPM. Survey questions asked about application, interview, and postinterview experiences, match results, and overall satisfaction with the process.ResultsThirteen percent of 2015 respondents and 20% of 2016 respondents were asked by at least one program how highly they planned to rank them or which program they would rank first. Thirty‐seven percent of 2015 and 40% of 2016 program directors indicated that candidates communicated to the program their rank intent, with 22.0% in 2015 and 12.5% in 2016 being told that their program would be ranked first. Twenty‐three percent of 2015 respondents indicated being asked by at least one program during the interview about children or plans to have children; including 19% of males and 33% of females. In 2016, these values were 28% overall, 22% male, and 36% female. Fifty‐seven percent of 2015 respondents who were asked this question indicated being uncomfortable or very uncomfortable answering, including 27.3% of males and 88.9% of females. In 2016, 42.9% of all respondents indicated being uncomfortable or very uncomfortable answering, including 10.0% of males and 80.0% of females.ConclusionsIn the first two years of the MPM, there were widespread instances of ethical violations and discriminatory questioning during the interview process. Educating both interviewers and candidates on the MPM rules and general EEOC guidelines should decrease these instances and increase the fairness of the residency selection process.

show abstract

Rank according to quality of the candidate and not on how highly it is believed that they will rank the programs.

Do not directly or indirectly divulge ranking intent; and do not solicit this information from candidates.

Eliminate postinterview communications to further minimize the risk of divulging or soliciting rank intent information.

…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Match systems require candidates and programs to submit numerically ranked lists by a single deadline; an algorithm then matches programs with applicants, assigning both their highest available placement rank. However, ethical violations can erode and diminish the potential of a fair match system 3, 4…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical violations and discriminatory behavior in the MedPhys Match

Hendrickson

Juang²,

Rodrigues

et al. 2017

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The NRMP specifically discourages PIC with the expectation that both parties follow a specific code of conduct, which includes "respecting an applicant's right to privacy and confidentiality, accepting responsibility for the actions of recruitment team members, refraining from asking illegal or coercive questions, declining to require second interviews or visiting rotations, and discouraging unnecessary PIC" 4,5 . Reports of PIC have highlighted that the practice frequently results in applicants being pressured to offer assurances of their interest in the communicating program 6,7 . PIC varies by specialty and residency program, and the prevalence and outcomes of PIC have been studied in many specialties, including orthopaedics (64% prevalence) 8 , dermatology (32%) 9 , urology (60%) 10 , and radiation oncology (55%) 11 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postinterview Communication in Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Interviews: A Survey of Match Applicants

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To maintain the integrity of the match, postinterview communication (PIC) from programs to applicants is monitored and discouraged. The most recent report on the prevalence of PIC in orthopaedics found that 64% of surveyed applicants in 2014 and 2015 had received some form of PIC during their match cycle. In July 2019, the American Orthopaedic Association's Council of Orthopaedic Residency Directors (AOA/CORD) released a guideline recommending the elimination of all PIC in any form. The goal of this follow-up study was to determine the current prevalence of PIC with orthopaedic surgery applicants and assess the perspectives of medical students who recently applied for orthopaedic surgery residency positions. Methods: A 35-question survey was e-mailed to all orthopaedic surgery residency applicants of 4 geographically diverse residency programs in postmatch March 2020. The survey was open for 1 month, and the responses were reported using descriptive statistics. Results: Of the 229 respondents (21% response rate), 91 (39.7%) received PIC during the 2019 to 2020 residency match cycle. The program director was most commonly identified (80.2%) as the person who communicated with the applicants. At the interview day, 198 respondents (86.5%) were told that programs would not be contacting the applicants with PIC. However, over a quarter of respondents (25.3%) who received PIC answered that those programs contacted applicants after announcing they would not. Nearly half of the respondents (48.5%) agreed or strongly agreed that PIC causes added stress on applicants, and over half (52.9%) agreed or strongly agreed that all programs should stop participating in any form of PIC. Conclusions: Although the prevalence of PIC seems to have decreased since the 2014 and 2015 match, there is still room for improvement toward eliminating PIC. The AOA/CORD position statement from July 2019 should be disseminated continuedThere was no source of funding for the submitted work.All other authors, their immediate family, and any research foundation with which they are affiliated did not receive any financial payments or other benefits from any commercial entity related to the subject of this article.Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJSOA/A325).

show abstract

Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Residency Match

Lansford

Fisher²,

Ossoff³

et al. 2004

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To examine satisfaction with the match process and reported failures to comply with the match rules among applicants of the January 2002 Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery match.Design: A survey was mailed to all applicants completing the 2002 San Francisco Matching Program match.Participants: Surveys were mailed to 312 applicants, and the 151 returned surveys were entered into a database, which was then subjected to statistical analysis. Main Outcome Measures:Survey questions asked whether the applicant matched and how highly, how well the applicant considers the match to fulfill its goals, how many interviews the applicant attended, and how many of these included perceived noncompliance with San Francisco Matching Program rules by region of the country.Results: Satisfaction with the match correlated significantly (PϽ.001) to how highly the applicant matched among those successfully matching. The satisfaction among matching applicants was significantly better (PϽ.001) than those not matching. The 151 respondents had a total of 970 interviews. The respondents reported that they identified noncompliance with the match rules in 42 (4.3%) of these encounters. Most (87%) respondents reported full adherence to the match rules, and the degree of adherence did not correlate significantly to applicants' satisfaction (P=.71). Conclusions:Applicants' satisfaction with the match process depended significantly on their match outcome. Rule noncompliance was rare and not significantly related to applicant satisfaction. This study suggests that otolaryngology applicants perceive high levels of satisfaction with the match and infrequent breaches of stated match rules.

show abstract

Communication between Programs and Applicants during Residency Selection

Cited by 21 publications

References 2 publications

Ethical violations and discriminatory behavior in the MedPhys Match

Ethical violations and discriminatory behavior in the MedPhys Match

Postinterview Communication in Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Interviews: A Survey of Match Applicants

Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Residency Match

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About