No abstract

Objectives: The standardized letter of evaluation (SLOE) was created in 1997 to provide residency program directors (PDs) with a summative evaluation that incorporates normative grading (i.e., comparisons to peers applying to emergency medicine [EM] training). Although the standard letter of recommendation (SLOR) has become increasingly popular and important in decision-making, it has not been studied in the past 12 years. To assess the SLOR's effectiveness and limitations, the perspective of EM PDs was surveyed in this study.Methods: After validation of the questionnaire by 10 retired PDs, the survey was sent to the PD of each of the 159 EM residencies that existed at that time. The survey was circulated via the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors' (CORD) listserv from January 24, 2013, to February 13, 2013. Weekly e-mail reminders to all PDs served to increase participation.Results: A total of 150 of 159 PDs (94.3%) completed the questionnaire. Nearly all respondents (149 of 150; 99.3%) agreed that the SLOR is an important evaluative tool and should continue to be used. In the application process, 91 of 150 (60.7%) programs require one or more SLORs, and an additional 55 (36.7%) recommend but do not require a SLOR to be considered for interview. When asked to identify the top three factors in deciding who should be interviewed, the SLOR was ranked first (139 of 150; 92.7%), with EM rotation grades ranked second (73 of 150; 48.7%). The factors that were most often identified as the top three that diminish the value of the SLOR in order were 1) "inflated evaluations" (121 of 146; 82.9%), 2) "inconsistency between comments and grades" (106 of 146; 72.6%), and 3) "inadequate perspective on candidate attributes in the written comments" and "inexperienced authors" (60 of 146; 41.1% each). Conclusions:The SLOR appears to be the most important tool in the EM PD's armamentarium for determining which candidates should be interviewed for residency training. Although valuable, the SLOR's potential utility is hampered by a number of factors, the most important of which is inflated evaluations. Focused changes in the SLOR template should be mindful that it appears, in general, to be successful in its intended purpose.ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2014;21:680-687 © 2014 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine P rior studies have shown that traditional narrative letters of recommendation (NLOR) suffer from a number of significant limitations. Such letters do not predict future performance.1,2 They often repeat cognitive merits of the applicant and do not specifically address noncognitive domains that may be more predictive of performance as a resident. 2,3 The information that is provided is not comparative and is often

No abstract

Objectives: An understanding of student decision-making when selecting an emergency medicine (EM) training program is essential for program directors as they enter interview season. To build upon preexisting knowledge, a survey was created to identify and prioritize the factors influencing candidate decision-making of U.S. medical graduates.Methods: This was a cross-sectional, multi-institutional study that anonymously surveyed U.S. allopathic applicants to EM training programs. It took place in the 3-week period between the 2011 National Residency Matching Program (NRMP) rank list submission deadline and the announcement of match results.Results: Of 1,525 invitations to participate, 870 candidates (57%) completed the survey. Overall, 96% of respondents stated that both geographic location and individual program characteristics were important to decision-making, with approximately equal numbers favoring location when compared to those who favored program characteristics. The most important factors in this regard were preference for a particular geographic location (74.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 72% to 78%) and to be close to spouse, significant other, or family (59.7%, 95% CI = 56% to 63%). Factors pertaining to geographic location tend to be out of the control of the program leadership. The most important program factors include the interview experience (48.9%, 95% CI = 46% to 52%), personal experience with the residents (48.5%, 95% CI = 45% to 52%), and academic reputation (44.9%, 95% CI = 42% to 48%). Unlike location, individual program factors are often either directly or somewhat under the control of the program leadership. Several other factors were ranked as the most important factor a disproportionate number of times, including a rotation in that emergency department (ED), orientation (academic vs. community), and duration of training (3-year vs. 4-year programs). For a subset of applicants, these factors had particular importance in overall decision-making. Conclusions:The vast majority of applicants to EM residency programs employed a balance of geographic location factors with individual program factors in selecting a residency program. Specific program characteristics represent the greatest opportunity to maximize the success of the immediate interview experience ⁄ season, while others provide potential for strategic planning over time. A working knowledge of these results empowers program directors to make informed decisions while providing an appreciation for the limitations in attracting applicants.