COVID-19: A Driver for Disruptive Innovation of the Emergency Medicine Residency Application Process

Pelletier-Bui, Alexis; Franzen, Douglas; Smith, Lee; Hopson, Laura R.; Lutfy-Clayton, Lucienne; Parekh, Kendra; Olaf, Mark; Morrissey, Tom; Gordon, David; McDonough, Erin; Schnapp, Benjamin; Edens, Mary Ann; Kiemeney, Michael

doi:10.5811/westjem.2020.8.48234

Cited by 14 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…131,132 The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the residency application process in numerous ways, [133][134][135][136] accelerating calls for disruptive innovation and affording opportunities for novel reform. 1,[137][138][139][140][141] Application caps were the most frequently proposed reform (n ¼ 28 articles), and many specialties have recommended limits for the 2020-2021 cycle. 138,142 Some have suggested deriving application caps from the AAMC Apply Smart tool, which correlates application data with specialty entrance rates to identify the point of diminishing returns for application submissions stratified by applicant type (MD/ DO/IMG) and Step 1 score tertile.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1,[137][138][139][140][141] Application caps were the most frequently proposed reform (n ¼ 28 articles), and many specialties have recommended limits for the 2020-2021 cycle. 138,142 Some have suggested deriving application caps from the AAMC Apply Smart tool, which correlates application data with specialty entrance rates to identify the point of diminishing returns for application submissions stratified by applicant type (MD/ DO/IMG) and Step 1 score tertile. 143 However, several methodologic concerns exist regarding the calculation and use of specialty entrance rates rather than match rates as well as the applicability of the data to individual applicants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systems-Level Reforms to the US Resident Selection Process: A Scoping Review

Zastrow

Burk-Rafel²,

London

2021

Journal of Graduate Medical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Calls to reform the US resident selection process are growing, given increasing competition and inefficiencies of the current system. Though numerous reforms have been proposed, they have not been comprehensively cataloged. Objective This scoping review was conducted to characterize and categorize literature proposing systems-level reforms to the resident selection process. Methods Following Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, searches of Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were performed for references published from January 2005 to February 2020. Articles were included if they proposed reforms that were applicable or generalizable to all applicants, medical schools, or residency programs. An inductive approach to qualitative content analysis was used to generate codes and higher-order categories. Results Of 10 407 unique references screened, 116 met our inclusion criteria. Qualitative analysis generated 34 codes that were grouped into 14 categories according to the broad stages of resident selection: application submission, application review, interviews, and the Match. The most commonly proposed reforms were implementation of an application cap (n = 28), creation of a standardized program database (n = 21), utilization of standardized letters of evaluation (n = 20), and pre-interview screening (n = 13). Conclusions This scoping review collated and categorized proposed reforms to the resident selection process, developing a common language and framework to facilitate national conversations and change.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systems-Level Reforms to the US Resident Selection Process: A Scoping Review

Zastrow

Burk-Rafel²,

London

2021

Journal of Graduate Medical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently, a few studies have been published in light of the disruption the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the residency and fellowship application process [ [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] ]. Bamba et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adult Reconstruction Fellowship Interviewee Perceptions of Virtual vs In-Person Interview Formats

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Owing to COVID-19, arthroplasty fellowship programs will be required to interview virtually for the current application cycle. Unrelated to COVID-19, our arthroplasty fellowship offered the 2019-2020 interviewees the option of an in-person or virtual interview. The purpose of the present study is to compare interviewee perceptions regarding in-person vs virtual interview formats from that application cycle at a single institution. Methods A 17-question survey was sent to all 26 interviewees (13 in-person and 13 virtual) shortly after the rank-list submission deadline. Interviewees were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with several statements, ranging from whether the interview was enjoyable to whether interviewees felt they were being adequately evaluated. In this Likert scale rating system, “strongly agree” was given 5 points (more positive outlook), and “strongly disagree” was given 1 point (more negative outlook). Chi-square analyses were performed. Results Seventeen interviewees (8 in-person and 9 virtual) returned questionnaires (response rate: 65%). Both in-person and virtual interview ratings were similar when averaged across all statements (4.5 vs 4.4, P = .67). In-person and virtual ratings were also similar for each individual statement (all P > .05). On average, interviewees spent $557/in-person interview. Fifteen (88%) said virtual interviews were more convenient, and 14 (94%) said they were more cost-effective. Conclusion At a single institution, perceptions on interview format, as quantified through Likert scale ratings, were similar between in-person and virtual groups. The vast majority also viewed virtual interviews as more convenient and cost-efficient. These findings have immediate implications for future fellowship application cycles.

show abstract

“…Given that there are over 80 medical schools without EM residency programs, we would suggest implementing practical, nationally collaborative processes such as creating more formal partnerships between schools without an EM residency program and other geographically proximate institutions with EM residency programs. Other ideas include increasing virtual advising, either from these formal partnerships or through professional society–sponsored national advising teams 17 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical student experiences of applying into emergency medicine during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A multi‐institutional survey of emergency medicine–bound medical students

Jauregui

Kessler

Villalón

et al. 2021

AEM Education and Training

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The COVID‐19 pandemic added new and great uncertainty to the typical approach to applying into emergency medicine (EM) for medical students. There is little data on students' lived experience of applying during this time period. We performed a multi‐institutional survey of EM‐bound students' experiences with preparing to apply into EM during the pandemic. Methods This was a cross sectional survey design study of fourth year students preparing to apply into EM during the 2020‐2021 academic year. All self‐identified EM‐bound students at four participating institutions were recruited by email in June 2020 to participate in a 13‐item, 5‐point Likert scale survey. Univariate descriptive statistics, response rate and non‐response bias were calculated. Results Sixty‐seven of 125 eligible students responded for an overall response rate of 53.6%. Nonresponse bias for specific survey items ranged from 0.01 to 0.12. Students rated the importance of securing an EM rotation at their home institution the highest of any item ( M = 4.81, SD = 0.68). Students indicated higher satisfaction with advice from their department of EM ( M = 4.28, SD = 0.75) than from their school of medicine ( M = 3.52 , SD = 0.89). Students indicated higher confidence in their home EM rotations’ ability to assure adequate PPE ( M = 3.91, SD = 0.83) than an away rotation ( M = 2.82, 1.09). Students reported feeling between moderately and quite stressed about applying into EM this year ( M = 3.49, SD = 1.01), but reported the financial stress the lowest of any item (M = 1.46, SD = 0.84). Students rated it highly important that away rotations prioritize students from institutions without an EM residency ( M = 4.51, SD = 0.93). Conclusion Medical students applying into EM during the COVID‐19 pandemic felt confident in their EM advisors’ recommendations and their home institution’s PPE provision. Students with EM residency programs at their schools recognized the importance of away rotations being prioritized for students from schools without EM residency programs. Strong EM advising is important to students.

show abstract

COVID-19: A Driver for Disruptive Innovation of the Emergency Medicine Residency Application Process

Cited by 14 publications

References 32 publications

Systems-Level Reforms to the US Resident Selection Process: A Scoping Review

Systems-Level Reforms to the US Resident Selection Process: A Scoping Review

Adult Reconstruction Fellowship Interviewee Perceptions of Virtual vs In-Person Interview Formats

Medical student experiences of applying into emergency medicine during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A multi‐institutional survey of emergency medicine–bound medical students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About