Background:The number of residency applications submitted by medical students rises annually, resulting in increased work and costs for residency programs and applicants, particularly in emergency medicine. We propose a solution to this problem: an optional, two-stage Match with a "summer match" stage, in which applicants can submit a limited number of applications early. This would be conducted similarly to the early decision process for college admissions. The study objectives were to explore stakeholder opinions on the feasibility of a summer match and to identify the ideal logistic parameters to operationalize this proposal. Methods:We used exploratory qualitative methodology following a constructivist paradigm to develop an understanding of the potential impact of a summer match.We interviewed 34 key stakeholders in the U.S. residency application process identified through purposive sampling including educational administrators (program directors, designated institutional officials, medical school deans) and trainees (students, residents). We coded and thematically analyzed interview data in two stages using an inductive approach.Results: We identified six themes from the participant interviews that broadly reflected issues of the residency application process, value, and equity. These themes included disrupting the status quo, logistic concerns, match strategy, differential benefits, unintended consequences, and return on investment. Most study participants supported the summer match concept, with medical students and residents most in favor. We developed a theoretical summer match protocol based on these findings. Conclusions:A summer match may reduce the burdens of increasing residency applications and associated costs. Pilot testing is necessary to confirm this hypothesis and determine the impact of the proposed summer match protocol. Unintended consequences must be considered carefully during implementation.

PurposeAnnual increases in the number of residency applications burden students and challenge programs. Several reforms to the application process have been proposed; however, stakeholder input is often overlooked. The authors examined key stakeholders' opinions about several proposed reforms to the residency application process and identified important factors to guide future reforms. MethodUsing semistructured interviews, the authors asked educational administrators and trainees to consider 5 commonly proposed reforms to the residency application process: Match to obtain residency interviews, preference signaling, application limits, geographic preference disclosure, and abolishing the Match. The authors conducted a modified content analysis of interview transcripts using qualitative and quantitative analytic techniques. Frequency analysis regarding the acceptability of the 5 proposed reforms and thematic analysis of important factors to guide reform were performed. Fifteen-minute interviews were conducted between July and October 2019, with data analysis completed during a 6-month period in 2020 and 2021. ResultsParticipants included 30 stakeholders from 9 medical specialties and 15 institutions. Most participants wanted to keep the Match process intact; however, they noted several important flaws in the system that disadvantage students and warrant change. Participants did not broadly support any of the 5 proposed reforms. Two themes were identified: principles to guide reform (fairness, transparency, equity, reducing costs to students, reducing total applications, reducing work for program directors, and avoiding unintended consequences) and unpopular reform proposals (concern that application limits threaten less competitive students and signaling adds bias to the system). ConclusionsKey stakeholders in the residency application process believe the system has important flaws that demand reform. Despite this, the most commonly proposed reforms are unacceptable to these stakeholders because they threaten fairness to students and program workload. These findings call for a larger investigation of proposed reforms with a more nationally representative stakeholder cohort.The number of residency applications submitted by U.S. medical students has increased substantially during the past 2 decades. Since the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) launched in 1996, there has been a near-linear, year-over-year increase in the number of applications submitted per MD student. [1][2][3][4][5][6] These increases are not strongly correlated with the number of residency positions available in the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) Match, 7 and they are not driven by DO or international medical students. 2,8 This trend raises questions about the sustainability of the current residency application process. [9][10][11][12][13]