A transparent and defensible process for applicant selection within a Canadian emergency medicine residency program

Call to action: equity, diversity, and inclusion in emergency medicine resident physician selection

OBJECTIVES

This call to action seeks to improve emergency care in Canada for equity-deserving communities, enabled by equitable representation among emergency physicians nationally. Specifically, this work describes current resident selection processes and makes recommendations to enhance the equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) of resident physician selection in Canadian emergency medicine (EM) residency programs.

METHODS

A diverse panel of EM residency program directors, attending and resident physicians, medical students, and community representatives met monthly from September 2021 to May 2022 via videoconference to coordinate a scoping literature review, two surveys, and structured interviews. This work informed the development of recommendations for incorporating EDI into Canadian EM resident physician selection. At the 2022 Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) Academic Symposium, these recommendations were presented to symposium attendees composed of national EM community leaders, members, and learners. Attendees were divided into small working groups to discuss the recommendations and address three conversation-facilitating questions.

RESULTS

Symposium feedback informed a final set of eight recommendations to promote EDI practices during the resident selection process that address recruitment, retention, mitigating inequities and biases, and education. Each recommendation is accompanied by specific, actionable sub-items to guide programs toward a more equitable selection process. The small working groups also described perceived barriers to the implementation of these recommendations and outlined strategies for success that are incorporated into the recommendations.

CONCLUSION

We call on Canadian EM training programs to implement these eight recommendations to strengthen EDI practices in EM resident physician selection and, in doing so, help to improve the care that patients from equity-deserving groups receive in Canada's emergency departments (EDs).

Delivering CaRMS Transparency: Applicant Review and Selection Process of a Single-Center Diagnostic Radiology Residency Training Program

PURPOSE

To report the current application review and selection process in our Canadian diagnostic radiology program at the University of Ottawa for both Canadian and international medical graduates.

APPLICATION REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS

Submitted applications fulfilling institutional requirements were selected for a detailed file review after preliminary screening. A diverse group of file reviewers and interviewers was selected. Interviews were offered based on file review score sheet outcomes. Each interviewer generated a postinterview rank list. Applicants were reviewed and discussed from highest to lowest rank based on a preliminary compiled rank list generated from the average of the postinterview rank lists. Group discussion and a consensus model were used to create a final applicant rank list.

CONCLUSIONS

We outlined our systematic, consistent selection process which aligns with current best practices. This description may inform other programs wishing to adopt or optimize strategies to improve candidate assessments and selection processes.

Resident selection for emergency medicine specialty training in Canada: A survey of existing practice with recommendations for programs, applicants, and references

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about how the Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) residency programs are selecting their residents. This creates uncertainty regarding alignment between current selection processes and known best practices. We seek to describe the current selection processes of Canadian RCEM programs.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed to all RCEM program directors and assistant directors. The survey instrument included 22 questions and sought both qualitative and quantitative data from the following six domains: application file, letters of reference, elective selection, interview, rank order, and selection process evaluation.

RESULTS

We received responses from 13 of 14 programs for an aggregate response rate of 92.9%. A candidate's letters of reference were identified as the most important criterion from the paper application (38.5%). Having a high level of familiarity with the applicant was the most important characteristic of a reference letter author (46.2%). In determining rank order, 53.8% of programs weighed the interview more heavily than the paper application. Once final candidate scores are established following the interview stage, all program respondents indicated that further adjustment is made to the final rank order list. Only 1 of 13 program respondents reported ever having completed a formal evaluation of their selection process.

CONCLUSION

We have identified elements of the selection process that will inform recommendations for programs, students, and referees. We encourage programs to conduct regular reviews of their selection process going forward to be in alignment with best practices.