Literature DB >> 27627632

The Residency Application Process: Pursuing Improved Outcomes Through Better Understanding of the Issues.

Peter J Katsufrakis1, Tara A Uhler, Lee D Jones.   

Abstract

The residency application process requires that applicants, their schools, and residency programs exchange and evaluate information to accomplish successful matching of applicants to postgraduate training positions. The different motivations of these stakeholders influence both the types of information provided by medical schools and the perceived value and completeness of information received by residency programs. National standards have arisen to shape the type and format of information reported by medical schools about their students, though criticisms about the candor and completeness of the information remain. Growth in the number of applicants without proportional expansion of training positions and continued increases in the number of applications submitted by each applicant contribute to increases in the absolute number of applications each year, as well as the difficulty of evaluating applicants. Few standardized measures exist to facilitate comparison of applicants, and the heterogeneous nature of provided information limits its utility. Residency programs have been accused of excluding qualified applicants through use of numerical screening methods, such as United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scores. Applicant evaluation includes review of standardized measurements such as USMLE Step 1 scores and other surrogate markers of future success. Proposed potential improvements to the residency application process include limiting applications; increasing the amount and/or types of information provided by applicants and by residency programs; shifting to holistic review, with standardization of metrics for important attributes; and fundamental reanalysis of the residency application process. A solution remains elusive, but these approaches may merit further consideration.

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27627632     DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001411

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  12 in total

1.  Current Applicant Perceptions of the Ophthalmology Residency Match.

Authors:  Michael J Venincasa; Louis Z Cai; Steven J Gedde; Tara Uhler; Jayanth Sridhar
Journal:  JAMA Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 7.389

Review 2.  A Narrative Review of the Evidence Supporting Factors Used by Residency Program Directors to Select Applicants for Interviews.

Authors:  Nicholas D Hartman; Cedric W Lefebvre; David E Manthey
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2019-06

3.  Internal Medicine Residency Program Responses to the Increase of Residency Applications: Differences by Program Type and Characteristics.

Authors:  Michelle L Sweet; Christopher M Williams; Emily Stewart; Saumil M Chudgar; Steven V Angus; Michael Kisielewski; Lisa L Willett
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2019-12

Review 4.  Systems-Level Reforms to the US Resident Selection Process: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Ryley K Zastrow; Jesse Burk-Rafel; Daniel A London
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2021-06-14

5.  Pre-matriculation clinical experience positively correlates with Step 1 and Step 2 scores.

Authors:  Raj Shah; Cameron Johnstone; Douglas Rappaport; Leslie A Bilello; William Adamas-Rappaport
Journal:  Adv Med Educ Pract       Date:  2018-09-25

6.  Red Flags, Geography, Exam Scores, and Other Factors Used by Program Directors in Determining Which Applicants Are Offered an Interview for Anesthesiology Residency.

Authors:  Rafael Vinagre; Pedro Tanaka; Yoon Soo Park; Alex Macario
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2020-11-18

7.  Time and Financial Costs for Students Participating in the National Residency Matching Program (the Match©): 2015 to 2020.

Authors:  Kari M Nilsen; Anne Walling; Jill Grothusen; Gretchen Irwin; Mark Meyer; Greg Unruh
Journal:  Kans J Med       Date:  2021-03-19

8.  Transparency in the Ophthalmology Residency Match: Background, Study, and Implications.

Authors:  Jonathan C Markle; Harris Ahmed; Kishan Pandya; Ankur Parikh; Youstina Bolok; Jared Fehlman; Varun Aitharaju; Riley Bastian; Shreya Dey; Meghana Chalasani; Meghana Chanamolu; Karina Pedersen; Natalie Ganios; Vincent Pham; Shabnam Mansur; Janice C Law
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2021-11-23

9.  Disruptive Innovation and the Residency Match: The Time Is Now.

Authors:  Anne G Pereira; Christopher M Williams; Steven V Angus
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2019-02

10.  Student Expenses in Residency Interviewing.

Authors:  Anne Walling; Kari Nilsen; Paul Callaway; Jill Grothusen; Cole Gillenwater; Samantha King; Gregory Unruh
Journal:  Kans J Med       Date:  2017-08-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.