Mentorship is Critical

Abstract

Background As the second cycle impacted by COVID-19, the 2022 Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) Match maintained virtual interviews while offering a modest lift of subinternship restrictions. The residency application process continues to evolve, with changes such as pass/fail United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 reporting prompting programs to reconsider metrics of applicant success. It is critical to address the impact of board scores, mentorship, and resource availability on a diverse applicant population in the PRS Match. Methods A survey was electronically administered to students applying to a single institutional PRS residency program. The survey inquired about demographics, application statistics, mentorship experience, and match outcomes. Logistic regressions were modeled to assess for odds of matching into plastic surgery. Results In total, 151 responses were analyzed, a 49.7% response rate. Most participants were female (52.3%), White (68.9%), and not Hispanic/Latino (84.8%). The largest percentage of respondents had a faculty mentor only from their home institution (55.0%) and a resident mentor from only their home institution (32.3%). Participants with a faculty mentor from both a home and outside institution had 7.4 times the odds of matching into PRS (P = 0.02) than students with no faculty mentorship. Students with dual-institution resident mentorship had 18.5 times higher the odds of matching compared with students with no resident mentorship (P < 0.001). Conclusions Subjective metrics, rather than objective scores, had the most influence on successfully matching into plastic surgery. As the PRS Match continues to become increasingly competitive, it behooves programs to provide equitable access to resources such as mentorship.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Physician-Scientist Trainees to Faculty One Year into the Pandemic

“…These ndings are again consistent with prior studies revealing medical student concern regarding the quality of their clinical training and exposure during COVID-19. 3,[7][8][9][10] The results of this survey suggest that despite the necessity of virtual clinical curricula early in the pandemic, perceived limitations of virtual clinical education have a negative impact on the student learning experience. Reinstitution of in-person clinical and academic learning is likely to be bene cial for improving clinical con dence among trainees.…”

“…Speci cally, work by our group and others demonstrate that MS respondents expressed concern about the quality of their clinical education, given that abrupt transitions to virtual curricula and reduced clinical experience limited sub-specialty exposure and impacted residency selection. 3,[7][8][9][10] MS responses to this survey underscore the continued negative impact of COVID-19 on stress, productivity, and optimism. Multivariate regression modeling demonstrated that working from home, impaired productivity, and concerns regarding the health of friends/family were each independently associated with increased feelings of stress.…”