INTRODUCTION: Residency networks, comprising groups of residency programs organized as collaborative ventures or consortia, have existed in the United States for more than 30 years. At the same time, there have been no comparative assessments of their structures and functions. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a survey of residency networks to assess their organizational structures and activities. METHODS: We identified 9 residency networks and designed a survey to specifically assess their organizational structures and activities. This survey was sent electronically to network leadership and all respective program directors in each residency network. The survey contained 6 areas of focus: (1) network history and administration; (2) network funding; (3) resource sharing and communication within the network; (4) network activities; (5) research within the network; and (6) strengths and weaknesses of the network. RESULTS: Of the 9 networks, 5 provided data, with 32 of a possible 51 residency programs (62.8%) responding. Respondents reported predominantly functioning as affiliated networks (76.3%) rather than collaborative ventures or consortia. The networks have a variety of funding streams and share resources. CONCLUSIONS: A major function of residency networks is the sharing of resources, particularly in the area of faculty development, with 97.1% of respondents sharing faculty development resources. In addition, all residency networks were actively involved in research, and they participated in political advocacy and in enhancing the engagement of medical students. Networks have been successful at obtaining grants to support their infrastructure.
INTRODUCTION: Residency networks, comprising groups of residency programs organized as collaborative ventures or consortia, have existed in the United States for more than 30 years. At the same time, there have been no comparative assessments of their structures and functions. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a survey of residency networks to assess their organizational structures and activities. METHODS: We identified 9 residency networks and designed a survey to specifically assess their organizational structures and activities. This survey was sent electronically to network leadership and all respective program directors in each residency network. The survey contained 6 areas of focus: (1) network history and administration; (2) network funding; (3) resource sharing and communication within the network; (4) network activities; (5) research within the network; and (6) strengths and weaknesses of the network. RESULTS: Of the 9 networks, 5 provided data, with 32 of a possible 51 residency programs (62.8%) responding. Respondents reported predominantly functioning as affiliated networks (76.3%) rather than collaborative ventures or consortia. The networks have a variety of funding streams and share resources. CONCLUSIONS: A major function of residency networks is the sharing of resources, particularly in the area of faculty development, with 97.1% of respondents sharing faculty development resources. In addition, all residency networks were actively involved in research, and they participated in political advocacy and in enhancing the engagement of medical students. Networks have been successful at obtaining grants to support their infrastructure.