The US Residency Selection Process After the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Pass/Fail Change: Overview for Applicants and Educators

Characterizing the initial effects of the single accreditation system merge on the ophthalmology residency match

INTRODUCTION

In 2020, the American Osteopathic Association merged its residency programs into one system under the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). The effects of this transition on the ophthalmology match is not fully understood. The purpose of this study is to assess the early impact of the transition to ACGME accreditation on MD, DO, and IMG representation in ophthalmology residency programs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Information about resident medical degree and resident medical school was gathered from ophthalmology residency program websites from a resident class before and after the Transition. Additionally, the medical degree of residency program directors (PD) was collected to analyze MD vs DO leadership in ophthalmology residency programs and to further stratify resident data to identify any trends in PD preference for different medical graduates.

RESULTS

Data was obtained for 915 ophthalmology residents in 110 residency programs that met the study's inclusion criteria. Of these programs, 102 were allopathic with MD leadership, 1 was allopathic with DO leadership, 3 were osteopathic with MD leadership, and 4 were osteopathic with DO leadership. Overall, MD representation increased while DO and IMG representation decreased although not significantly. For both classes analyzed, DO and IMG representation was disproportionately low.

DISCUSSION

The transition to ACGME accreditation seems to have primarily harmed DO and IMG applicants in the ophthalmology match while benefitting MDs. Various factors such as loss of protected residency positions for DO applicants and the closure of osteopathic ophthalmology residency programs are likely reasons to blame for this decrease in osteopathic representation.

Financial barriers and inequity in medical education in India: challenges to training a diverse and representative healthcare workforce

India has been historically challenged by an insufficient and heterogeneously clustered distribution of healthcare infrastructure. While resource-limited healthcare settings, such as major parts of India, require multidisciplinary approaches for improvement, one key approach is the recruitment and training of a healthcare workforce representative of its population. This requires overcoming barriers to equity and representation in Indian medical education that are multi-faceted, historical, and rooted in inequality. However, literature is lacking regarding the financial or economic barriers, and their implications on equity and representation in the Indian allopathic physician workforce, which this review sought to describe. Keyword-based searches were carried out in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus in order to identify relevant literature published till November 2023. This state-of-the-art narrative review describes the existing multi-pronged economic barriers, recent and forthcoming changes deepening these barriers, and how these may limit opportunities for having a diverse workforce. Three sets of major economic barriers exist to becoming a specialized medical practitioner in India - resources required to get selected into an Indian medical school, resources required to pursue medical school, and resources required to get a residency position. The resources in this endeavor have historically included substantial efforts, finances, and privilege, but rising barriers in the medical education system have worsened the state of inequity. Preparation costs for medical school and residency entrance tests have risen steadily, which may be further exacerbated by recent major policy changes regarding licensing and residency selection. Additionally, considerable increases in direct and indirect costs of medical education have recently occurred. Urgent action in these areas may help the Indian population get access to a diverse and representative healthcare workforce and also help alleviate the shortage of primary care physicians in the country. Discussed are the reasons for rural healthcare disparities in India and potential solutions related to medical education.

Identification, Characterization, and Ranking of Candidate Metrics for Selection to Anesthesiology Residency: An Iterative Survey of Program Directors

Background

The primary aim of this study was to identify and stratify candidate metrics used by anesthesiology residency program directors (PDs) to develop their residency rank lists through the National Resident Matching Program.

Methods

Sixteen PDs comprised the participants, selected for diversity in geography and program size. We used a 3-round iterative survey to identify and stratify candidate metrics. In the first round, participants listed metrics they planned to use to evaluate candidates. In the second round, metrics from the first round were ranked by importance, and criteria were solicited to define an exceptional, strong, average, marginal, and uncompetitive candidate for each metric. In the third round, aggregated results were presented and participants refined their rankings.

Results

Of the 16 PDs selected, 15 participated in the first and second survey rounds, and 10 in the third. Eighteen candidate metrics were indicated by 8 or more PDs for residency selection. All 10 PDs from the final round identified passing Step 1 of the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) and the absence of "red flags" like a failed rotation as key selection metrics, both averaging an importance score of 4.9 out of 5. Other metrics identified by all PDs included clerkship evaluation comments, USMLE Step 2 scores, class rank, letters of recommendation, personal statement, and program and geographical signals.

Conclusions

The study reveals key metrics anesthesiology residency PDs use for candidate ranking, which may offer candidates insights into their competitiveness for anesthesiology residency.

Importance of residency applicant factors based on specialty and demographics: a national survey of program directors

BACKGROUND

With the transition away from traditional numerical grades/scores, residency applicant factors such as service, research, leadership, and extra-curricular activities may become more critical in the application process.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the importance of residency application factors reported by program directors (PDs), stratified by director demographics and specialty.

METHOD

A questionnaire was electronically distributed to 4241 residency PDs in 23 specialties during spring 2022 and included questions on PD demographics and 22 residency applicant factors, including demographics, academic history, research involvement, and extracurricular activities. Responses were measured using a Likert scale for importance. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square and Fisher exact test analysis were performed.

RESULTS

767 questionnaires were completed (19% response rate). Across all specialties, the factor considered most important was the interview (99.5%). When stratified by specialty, surgical PDs were more likely to characterize class rank, letters of recommendation, research, presenting scholarly work, and involvement in collegiate sports as extremely important/very important (all p < 0.0001). In contrast, primary care PDs favored the proximity of the candidate's hometown (p = 0.0002) and community service (p = 0.03). Mean importance of applicant factors also differed by PD age, gender, and ethnicity.

CONCLUSION

We have identified several residency application factors considered important by PDs, stratified by their specialty, demographics, and previous experiences. With the transition away from numerical grades/scores, medical students should be aware of the factors PDs consider important based on their chosen specialty. Our analysis may assist medical students in understanding the application and match process across various specialties.

Additional Considerations for US Residency Selection After Pass/Fail USMLE Step 1. Comment on "The US Residency Selection Process After the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Pass/Fail Change: Overview for Applicants and Educators"

Collapse

Authors' Reply to: Additional Considerations for US Residency Selection After Pass/Fail USMLE Step 1. Comment on "The US Residency Selection Process After the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Pass/Fail Change: Overview for Applicants and Educators"

Collapse

Examination Scores but not Clinical Performance Correlate With Duration of Preclinical Didactic Time: A Synchronous Comparison of Second- Versus Third-Year Medical Students on the Surgery Clerkship

OBJECTIVE

Numerous institutions have reduced preclinical didactic time to facilitate earlier clinical exposure during the second year of medical education. However, the effects that shortened preclinical education may have on performance in the surgery clerkship are unclear. This study aims to compare the clinical and examination performance of second- (MS2) and third-year (MS3) students synchronously completing an identical surgery clerkship.

DESIGN

All students completing the surgery clerkship (identical didactics, examinations, clinical rotations, etc.) were included. MS3s received 24 months of preclinical education, whereas MS2s received 14 months. Performance outcomes included weekly quizzes based on lectures, NBME Surgery Shelf Exam, numeric clinical evaluations, objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) scores, and overall clerkship grades.

SETTING

University of Miami Miller School of Medicine.

PARTICIPANTS

All second- (MS2) and third-year (MS3) medical students completing the Surgery Clerkship over 1 year (n = 395).

RESULTS

There were 199 MS3 (50%) and 196 MS2 (50%) students. MS3s demonstrated higher median shelf exams (77% vs 72% MS2s), weekly quiz score averages (87% vs 80% MS2s), clinical evaluations (96% vs 95% MS2s), and overall clerkship grades (89% vs 87% MS2s), all p < 0.020. There was no difference in median OSCE performance (both 92%; p = 0.499). A greater proportion of MS3 students performed in the highest 50% of weekly quiz scores (57% vs 43% MS2), NBME shelf exams (59% vs 39% MS2), and overall clerkship grades (45% vs 37% MS2), all p < 0.010. No significant difference in the proportion of students placing in the top 50% of clinical parameters including the OSCE (48% MS3 vs 46% MS2; p = 0.106) and clinical evaluations (45% MS3 vs 38%; p = 0.185) was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the duration of preclerkship education may correspond to examination scores, MS2s and MS3s perform similarly on clinical metrics. Future strategies to enhance available preclinical didactic time and preparation for examinations are needed.