Factors Used by Program Directors to Select Hand Surgery Fellows

Nies, Matthew S.; Bollinger, Alexander J.; Cassidy, Charles; Jebson, Peter J.L.

doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2014.07.012

Cited by 30 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This pattern is borne out both by research into other fellowships' selection criteria and our own results, which show that exam scores and medical school performance were not essential. [5][6][7][8] Indeed, all the factors marked as being the most essential were either part of the interview process or related to letters of recommendation. As Rod Rohrich points out in reference to plastic surgery residency applicants, examination score may be an indicator of one's abilities but they pale in comparison to personal interaction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microsurgery Fellowship Selection Criteria: A National Program Director Survey

Egro

Blecher

Gimbel

et al. 2016

J reconstr Microsurg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Desirable candidate characteristics for microsurgery fellowship applicants still remain unclear, as no data are available in the literature. This study aims to provide information on the criteria that are used to select and rank applicants for the microsurgery fellowship match. A 38-question survey was sent in April 2015 to all microsurgery fellowship directors ( = 36) involved in the U.S. match, using QuestionPro Software. The survey investigated various factors used for selection of applicants, including medical school, residency training, research experience, fellowship interview, and candidate characteristics. A 5-point Likert scale was used to grade 33 influential factors from 1 ("not at all important in making my decision") to 5 ("essential in making my decision"), or for 5 controversial factors from 1 ("very negative impact in making my decision") to 5 ("very positive impact in making my decision"). A total of 53% (19 out of 36) of responses were received from microsurgery fellowship directors. The most important factors included letters of recommendations by microsurgeons (4.6 ± 0.5), interactions with faculty (4.6 ± 0.5), overall interview performance in the selection process (4.6 ± 0.5), and professionalism and ethics (4.4 ± 0.7). Factors that had a negative impact on the selection process included graduate from a non-U.S. plastic surgery residency program (2.1 ± 0.9), graduate needing a visa (2.3 ± 0.8), and graduate from a foreign medical school (2.4 ± 1.0). This study provides data on the microsurgery fellowship directors' perception of the criteria important for applicant selection and shows that the most valued criteria are letters of recommendation, interactions with faculty, and interview performance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microsurgery Fellowship Selection Criteria: A National Program Director Survey

Egro

Blecher

Gimbel

et al. 2016

J reconstr Microsurg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Successfully matched applicants who responded to the survey applied to a mean (SD) of 33 (17) , with no significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .65; 95% CI, −0.77 to 1.22). Sixty-six applicants (43%) who responded matched at their number 1 ranked program; 23 (15%), at their number 2 ranked program; and 21 (14%), at their number 3 ranked program, with other matched applicant rankings as seen in Figure 3.…”

Section: Applications Submitted Programs Ranked and Match Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…17 The quality and content of the letter is important, but the letter writer's position and perceived reputation is also important, as 2 studies found that letters on which the highest value was placed were from either the division chief or another surgeon within the division. 17,20 An opposing viewpoint is offered by a 1984 study that found letters of recommendation often lack reliability or validity, which may be why it is common for program directors to obtain more information about an applicant from telephone calls and other personal communication with friends and colleagues. 20,21 The specific nature of a personal relationship between colleagues is important, as great difference exist between an email to a fellowship director who is a stranger and a call to a trusted longstanding friend.…”

Section: Mentor-to-program Contactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association of Mentor-to-Program Contact and Applicant Rank Disclosure With Vitreoretinal Fellowship Applicant's Final Match Outcome in 2016 and 2017

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Communication between applicants, mentors, and training programs is common before the residency and fellowship match. Few studies have examined the association of prematch communication on final match outcomes. OBJECTIVES To report various characteristics of the vitreoretinal surgery fellowship match and to examine the association of mentor-to-program communication and applicant disclosure of their number 1 ranking with the probability of matching number 1. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this cross-sectional study of the 2016 and 2017 vitreoretinal surgery fellowship matches, an online survey examined (1) number of applications submitted, (2) number of programs ranked, (3) rank order of final match, (4) total application and interview-related costs, (5) mentor-to-program contact, (6) applicant disclosure of number 1 ranking, and (7) mentor disclosure of number 1 ranking. A link to an anonymous online survey was sent to 198 matched fellows (105 fellows from the 2016 match and 93 from the 2017 match). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Survey responses regarding the vitreoretinal surgery fellowship application process. RESULTS The survey was sent to 198 matched fellowship applicants, and 152 (77%) completed the survey. Of the 105 matched applicants in 2016, 21 (20%) were women. Of the 93 matched applicants in 2017, 24 (26%) were women. Matched applicants applied to a mean (SD) of 34 (17) programs (range, 1-85) and ranked a mean (SD) of 12 (4) programs (range, 1-27). Of 152 applicants, 66 (43%) matched at their number 1 ranked program, 23 (15%) matched number 2, and 21 (14%) matched number 3. The mean (SD) total cost was $5500

show abstract

“…3 Given the need for fellowship application during the fifth year of residency, plastic surgeons may be at a disadvantage for developing an interest based on clinical exposure. Successful hand fellowship applicants need publications and letters of recommendation from hand surgeons, 25 a process that requires early preparation and successful longitudinal experience such that early clinical exposure becomes tantamount. This lack of exposure is perhaps felt most strongly by American medical students, who incorrectly identify the scope of hand surgery procedures performed by plastic surgeons 66.6 percent of the time.…”

Section: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery • December 2015mentioning

confidence: 99%