Background The type of content that influences plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) residency program selection and attracts applicants is everchanging and not clearly understood. Further, the COVID-19 pandemic had a major impact on residency selection that is undetermined. Objectives The purpose of this study was to determine to what degree and the type of PRS SM content that drives prospective applicants’ interest of a residency program, especially in the context of COVID-19. Methods Prospective PRS residency applicants were surveyed anonymously. Results An average of 60% of respondents reported that PRS social media (SM) content influenced their perception of a program. Fifty-eight percent reported that resident lifestyle content made them gain interest in a program. Separately, 32% reported that resident lifestyle content influenced them to rank a program higher. Seventy-two percent of respondents claimed SM content did not make them lose interest in a program. Rarely posting, outdated content, and lack of engagement were cited as factors for loss of interest in a program. A majority of respondents (53%) reported wanting to see more resident life and culture content on SM. Of the existing PRS SM content, respondents were most interested in resident lifestyle, followed by clinical and program-specific content. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic amplified the importance of SM PRS residency selection. Resident lifestyle content was consistently indicated as more likely to make respondents gain interest in a program, rank a program higher, and as the most desired content. PRS programs will benefit from highlighting resident camaraderie, quality of life, hobbies, and lifestyle to attract applicants.

Background: American Board of Plastic Surgery (ABPS) diplomates complete training in aesthetic surgery through an Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education–accredited program. American Board of Cosmetic Surgery (ABCS) diplomates complete residency training in a “related” specialty, some historically nonsurgical, followed by an American Association of Cosmetic Surgery fellowship. Unlike the ABPS, the ABCS is not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties as an equivalent certifying board. This study evaluated differences in the rates of punitive action against diplomates of the ABPS and the ABCS. Methods: Diplomates were accessed from their respective society’s websites. Punitive action data were obtained by search of publicly available state medical board databases. A comparative analysis was performed between ABPS and ABCS. Results: One thousand two hundred eight physicians were identified for comparative analysis. Two hundred sixty-six (22 percent) were members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, and 549 (49 percent) were members of The Aesthetic Society. ABCS diplomates had significantly higher rates of disciplinary administrative action by their respective state medical boards [n = 31 (9.0 percent)] when compared with ABPS members [The Aesthetic Society, n = 26 (4.4 percent); ABPS, n = 8 (3.1 percent); p = 0.003], with a higher proportion of repeat offenders. In addition, ABCS diplomates had more public letters of reprimand [ABCS, n = 12 (3.5 percent); The Aesthetic Society, n = 6 (1.2 percent); and ABPS, n = 2 (0.8 percent); p = 0.015]. Conclusions: ABCS diplomates have significantly higher rates of punitive actions than ABPS diplomates. Although the reasons for this discrepancy warrant further investigation, punitive data should be transparently and publicly available to aid patients in informed decision-making.