Publishing history does not correlate with clinical performance among internal medicine residents.

OBJECTIVES Selection criteria for applicants to the internal medicine programme at the University of Toronto have included the number and quality of scholarly items published. We sought to determine whether previous publishing record correlated with resident performance as measured by in-training evaluation reports (ITERs) and global impressions of clinical competency by site programme directors and senior educators (global impression). METHODS Data on the total number, quality and type of items published, as well as the timing of publishing with regard to pre-MD training, were abstracted from the curricula vitae of individuals who applied for residency during 2001-2005. These were correlated with overall, Expert and Scholar role ITER scores, and with global impression, using Spearman rank correlation scores. RESULTS We gathered publishing history data on 181 residents, for 162 of whom ITER data were available. Overall, 68.5% of residents had published, but only 14.9% had published during medical school. There was a weak correlation of borderline significance (rho = 0.15, P = 0.055) between overall ITER score and number of items published. No such correlation was found with CanMEDS Medical Expert and Scholar role scores. Global impression classified 33.9% of residents as top-rated. More top-rated residents had published (76.7% versus 65.1%; P = 0.07), but the number of items published during medical school were similar between top-rated and non-top-rated residents (16.1% versus 12.3%; P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS Our results do not support publishing record as a predictor of residents' clinical performance. Surprisingly, the correlation between publishing record and Scholar role scores was also weak, possibly indicating an inability of the ITER to capture this competency. Further research is needed to identify predictors and measures of performance in scholarly activities.